Wakilii

Kiyindi Electronical & Engineering Limited v Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Authority (Civil Appeal 86 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 401 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from PPDA Appeals Tribunal decision dismissing application for extension of time to file review application
Decision
Appeal dismissed and Tribunal's decision upholding the expiry of time for review upheld

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 High Court held that the PPDA Appeals Tribunal correctly applied the mandatory ten-working-day time limit under section 91L(1)(c) of the PPDA Act 2003. The Tribunal has no inherent or statutory power to extend time where the Act itself provides no such enabling provision. The Civil Procedure Act and Rules cannot override the express statutory time limit. The appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed and Tribunal's decision upholding the expiry of time for review upheld

Facts

The appellant applied for administrative review to the respondent authority and received the decision on 28 September 2020. Upon attempting to appeal to the PPDA Appeals Tribunal, the appellant was informed that the ten-working-day appeal period had expired on 13 October 2020. The appellant then applied to the Tribunal for extension of time to file the appeal, which application was dismissed by the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the decision was communicated to its lawyers on 30 September 2020 in the evening when the directors were upcountry participating in NRM elections and could not instruct counsel in time. The respondent contended that the decision was served by email on 28 September 2020 and by hard copy on 29 September 2020.

Issues

  1. Whether the members of the PPDA Appeals Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the application for extension of time to file an appeal
  2. Whether the PPDA Appeals Tribunal erred in finding that time for appeal started running from 29 September 2020
  3. Whether the appellant's right to appeal was properly extinguished for non-compliance with statutory time limits

Orders

  • The appeal is hereby dismissed.
  • The decision and orders of the Tribunal are upheld.
  • No order as to costs given the nature and circumstances of this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — PPDA Appeals Tribunal — Jurisdiction — Statutory Time Limits for Appeal
The PPDA Appeals Tribunal has no inherent or statutory power to extend the ten-working-day time limit prescribed by section 91L(1)(c) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 where the Act itself contains no enabling provision granting such power.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Inapplicability of Civil Procedure Rules to Statutory Time Limits
The Civil Procedure Act and Rules governing extension of time cannot be applied to override a mandatory statutory time limit where the governing statute contains no provision empowering the tribunal or court to enlarge time.
Statutory Interpretation — Mandatory Provisions — Use of 'Shall'
Where a statutory provision uses the word 'shall' in prescribing a time limit for lodging an application, the provision is mandatory and requires strict compliance, reflecting the legislature's intention to ensure expeditious determination of disputes.
Administrative Law — PPDA — Service of Decisions — Email Service as Effective Service
Service of a PPDA Authority decision by email to a party's lawyers constitutes effective service from which the statutory time limit for appeal begins to run, in accordance with Uganda Judiciary Office Instruction No. 2 of 2020.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act No. 1 of 2003 s.91L
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act No. 1 of 2003 s.91T
  • PPDA (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations SI No. 16 of 2016 r.36(1)
  • PPDA (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations SI No. 16 of 2016 r.34
  • Civil Procedure Act

Cases cited (8)

  • Baguma Fred v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004)
  • Kifamunته Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2007)
  • Afayo Luiji & Another v Izio Enzama (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 73 of 2017)
  • Shanti v Hindocha and others [1973] EA 207
  • Kyagulanyi Ssentamu Robert v Yoweri Museveni Tibuhaburwa Kaguta, Electoral Commission and Attorney General (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2021)
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Sam K. Njuba & Another (Supreme Court Election Petition Appeal No. 26 of 2007)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Fredrick J.K Zaabwe Vs. Orient Bank & 5 others

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiyindi Electronical & Engineering Limited v Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Authority (Civil Appeal 86 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 401 (18 September 2023)
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.