Wakilii

Krystal Concept Limited v Uganda Communications Commission [2025] UGPPDPAAT 26

Tribunal · 2025 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out for lack of locus standi and expiry of bid validity

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 struck out the application on jurisdictional grounds. The applicant lacked locus standi because it failed to submit a formal written complaint to the Accounting Officer as required by statute before filing with the Tribunal. Additionally, the applicant's bid had expired before the application was filed, ending its participation in the procurement process and removing any basis for standing before the Tribunal.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of locus standi and expiry of bid validity

Facts

Uganda Communications Commission initiated a procurement for canteen services on April 15, 2025, inviting ten potential bidders. Six bidders submitted bids on May 1, 2025, including Krystal Concept Limited (the Applicant). On July 21, 2025, the Respondent issued a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder naming Omuka Restaurant Limited as the successful bidder. The Applicant, dissatisfied with the evaluation, engaged in informal discussions with the Accounting Officer but did not submit a formal written complaint as required by statute. On July 29, 2025, the Applicant notified the Respondent of its intention to appeal. The Applicant filed an application with the Tribunal on August 7, 2025, after the bid validity period had expired on July 28, 2025. The Applicant challenged the evaluation process, arguing that the Accounting Officer failed to investigate its complaint, improperly disqualified its bid for lack of a KCCA food handlers' certificate despite submitting ISO certificates, and failed to request an extension of bid validity.

Issues

  1. Whether the instant Application is competent before the Tribunal
  2. Whether the Accounting Officer of the Respondent erred in law and fact by failing to investigate whether the fundamental principles of procurement were adhered to during the evaluation of the Applicant's bid
  3. Whether the Accounting Officer of the Respondent erred in law and fact by failing to consider the Applicant's internationally recognized ISO quality control certificates during the evaluation of its bid
  4. Whether the Respondent's Accounting Officer erred in law and fact by neglecting to request bidders to extend their bid validity period after the Applicant filed a complaint for administrative review

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated August 7, 2025, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Requirement for Written Complaint
A bidder seeking to challenge a procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal must first submit a formal written complaint to the Accounting Officer of the procuring entity as required by section 106(3)(a) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and Regulation 4(1) of the Administrative Review Regulations. Informal discussions with the Accounting Officer do not satisfy this statutory requirement and do not confer locus standi to file an application with the Tribunal.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Bid Validity — Effect of Expiry
Once a bid validity period expires, the procurement process ends for the affected bidder and any application based on an expired bid is incompetent. A bidder who fails to submit a formal written complaint has no basis to require the Accounting Officer to request an extension of bid validity under section 106(6) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, and if the bidder does not voluntarily extend the bid validity under Regulation 62(6), the bid lapses and the bidder loses standing to challenge the procurement.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Reclassification of Bidder Status
A bidder who actually participated in a procurement process cannot later reclassify as a 'person whose rights are adversely affected' under section 115(1)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act simply to gain standing before the Tribunal. Such attempts to shift legal identity in pursuit of locus standi will be rejected.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (10)

  • Kercon Prosper v Attorney General & 3 Others (Misc. Cause No. 308 of 2017)
  • Trio Consultants Ltd v UNRA (Application No. 33 of 2024)
  • Salongo Matovu v UNRA (Application No. 3 of 2025)
  • Apple Properties Limited v Uganda Human Rights Commission (Application No. 6 of 2023)
  • Beautiful Engineering Equipment Limited v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 15 of 2021)
  • Kazmi Frederick v PPDA (Application No. 16 of 2025)
  • Meera Investment Limited v National Lotteries and Gaming Regulatory Board & Riverstone Africa Ltd (Application No. 44 of 2024)
  • Twed Property Development Limited v PPDA (Application No. 9 of 2015)
  • Mbarara City & Anor v Obon Infrastructure Development JV (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2021)
  • Tijos Investment Ltd v Lira City Council (Application No. 5 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Krystal Concept Limited v Uganda Communications Commission 2025 UGPPDPAAT 26 (26 August 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.