Wakilii

Kili BK Enterprises Limited v Arua City Council [2025] UGPPDPAAT 40

Tribunal · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Accounting Officer's decision to set aside contract award and award to another bidder
Decision
Matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation by newly constituted Evaluation Committee

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Tribunal held that an Accounting Officer conducting an administrative review lacks authority to re-evaluate bids or make contract award decisions, as these functions are reserved for the Evaluation Committee and Contracts Committee respectively under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The Accounting Officer's decision to set aside the contract award to the Applicant and award it to another bidder was ultra vires and invalid. The matter was remitted for re-evaluation by a newly constituted Evaluation Committee to address conflict of interest concerns.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation by newly constituted Evaluation Committee

Facts

Arua City Council initiated a procurement for collection of revenue from an abattoir in Arua Central Division. Four bidders submitted bids on July 17, 2025. The Respondent issued a best-evaluated bidder notice on August 1, 2025, naming Kili BK Enterprises Ltd as the best-evaluated bidder at UGX 28,050,000 per month. Rainbow Market Vendors Association Ltd filed a complaint with the Accounting Officer on August 11, 2025. The Accounting Officer appointed an Administrative Review Committee which found irregularities in the appointment of the Evaluation Committee Chairperson and alleged conflicts of interest in the Applicant's bid. On August 14, 2025, the Accounting Officer adopted the Committee's findings, set aside the award to Kili BK Enterprises Ltd, and awarded the contract to Rainbow Market Vendors Association Ltd at UGX 26,250,000 per month. Kili BK Enterprises Ltd filed this application on August 25, 2025, challenging the Accounting Officer's decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law and fact when he purported to evaluate bids in the course of conducting an administrative review and consequently awarded the contract to Rainbow Market Vendors Ltd.
  2. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law and fact when he awarded the contract to Rainbow Market Vendors Ltd without cancelling and setting aside the award of the contract to the Applicant.
  3. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law and fact when he awarded the contract to Rainbow Market Vendors Ltd.
  4. Whether the Accounting Officer acted irregularly by selectively cancelling the award of the contract to the Applicant and awarding it to Rainbow Market Vendors Ltd despite the same Evaluation Committee handling multiple procurements for the same Entity.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Decision of the Respondent's Accounting Officer dated August 14, 2025 set aside.
  • Award of contract to Rainbow Market Vendors Association as communicated in the Accounting Officer's decision dated August 14, 2025 set aside.
  • Respondent directed to re-evaluate the bids in the impugned procurement in a manner not inconsistent with this decision and the law.
  • Bids to be evaluated by a new evaluation committee within 10 days of the Tribunal's decision date.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated August 25, 2025 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Separation of Functions — Accounting Officer's Powers
An Accounting Officer conducting an administrative review lacks authority to re-evaluate bids or make contract award decisions, as the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act assigns bid evaluation to the Evaluation Committee under section 39(1) and contract award decisions to the Contracts Committee under sections 30(a) and 31(1)(c). Any re-evaluation by an Accounting Officer during administrative review is ultra vires, null and void.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Accounting Officer's Role
Under section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, an Accounting Officer conducting an administrative review is authorized only to make and communicate a written decision addressed to the bidder who made the complaint, specifying reasons and any corrective action. The Accounting Officer cannot cancel a contract award made by the Contracts Committee or issue a new contract award decision without Contracts Committee approval.
Public Procurement — Evaluation Committee — Appointment of Chairperson
Under regulation 3(1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2023, the chairperson of an Evaluation Committee must be chosen by the Evaluation Committee members themselves from among themselves, rather than appointed by the Procurement and Disposal Unit or Contracts Committee. However, where the Evaluation Committee's report is unanimous and reached by consensus, a procedural irregularity in the chairperson's appointment does not materially affect the outcome and should not serve as a basis to set aside a contract award.
Public Procurement — Delegation — Administrative Review Committee
An Accounting Officer may delegate procurement functions to staff members of the procuring and disposing entity under section 41(a)(ii) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, and may appoint an administrative review committee to investigate complaints. However, the recommendations of an administrative review committee are advisory only and not binding on the Accounting Officer, who must make and communicate the administrative decision within statutory deadlines.
Public Procurement — Conflict of Interest — Remittal for Re-evaluation
Where allegations of conflict of interest in a bidder's submission are not considered by the Evaluation Committee during the initial evaluation, it is fair and appropriate to remit the bids for re-evaluation by a newly formed Evaluation Committee to ensure the evaluation process upholds the principles of transparency, accountability, and fairness required in public procurement.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (4)

  • Nalu Tours and Travel Ltd v Jinja City (Application No. 30 of 2022)
  • Nalu Tours and Travel Ltd v Jinja City (Application No. 19 of 2023)
  • Quality Inspection Services Inc Japan and 2 Others v Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Consolidated Applications No. 15, 17 and 18 of 2023)
  • Rhema Engineering Company Ltd v Arua City (Application No. 13 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Kili BK Enterprises Limited v Arua City Council 2025 UGPPDPAAT 40 (12 September 2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.