Wakilii

Kwikiriza v Buliisa District Local Government (Application No 28 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 27 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed — Procurement Cancelled AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision following failure of Accounting Officer to decide administrative review complaint
Decision
Procurement cancelled; contract with successful bidder declared null and void; respondent may re-tender if it wishes

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 the Accounting Officer breached statutory duties by failing to decide the administrative review complaint within the prescribed period and by unlawfully entering into a contract during the review period. The Applicant's bid was wrongly declared non-responsive for including additional staff positions beyond the minimum required. However, the Applicant's bid was invalid because she was illiterate and the mandatory protections under the Illiterates Protection Act were not complied with. The procurement was cancelled as fatally flawed.

Outcome

Procurement cancelled; contract with successful bidder declared null and void; respondent may re-tender if it wishes

Facts

Buliisa District Local Government initiated a procurement for management of local revenue sources including Nyamukuta Sonsio fish landing site for financial year 2022-2023. Two bids were received: from the Applicant (Frida B. Kwikiriza) and Ochopa John. The Best Evaluated Bidder Notice displayed on 19 August 2022 indicated Ochopa John as successful at UGX 1,837,500, while the Applicant's bid was declared non-responsive for including positions of Director and Assistant. The Applicant filed an administrative review complaint with the Accounting Officer on 24 August 2022. The Accounting Officer did not decide the complaint within the statutory 10-day period. On 31 August 2022, the Respondent entered into a Purchase Order Agreement with Ochopa John. The Applicant then filed this application to the Tribunal on 13 September 2022. During the hearing, it emerged that the Applicant had studied only to Primary 3 level and could not read or understand English.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant's letter dated 12th September 2022 addressed to the Registrar of the Tribunal is a competent application?
  2. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law and fact when he failed or omitted to make and communicate a decision on the complaint of the Applicant?
  3. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law and fact when he failed or omitted to immediately suspend the procurement process upon receipt of the Applicant's complaint?
  4. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it decided that the Applicant's bid was non-responsive to the requirements of the bidding document?
  5. Whether the Purchase Order Agreement between the Respondent and Ochopa John for the management of Nyamukuta Sonsio fish landing site in Butiaba Sub County is valid?
  6. What reliefs are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Purchase Order Agreement between Ochopa John and the Respondent, entered into on 31st August 2022 for management of Nyamukuta Sonsio fish landing site in Butiaba Sub County is null and void and is hereby cancelled.
  • The procurement for management of Nyamukuta Sonsio fish landing site in Butiaba Sub County under procurement reference number BUL1576/SRVCS/2022-2023/00019 is cancelled.
  • The Respondent, if it so wishes, may re-tender the procurement for management of Nyamukuta Sonsio fish landing site in Butiaba Sub County.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated 13th September 2022 is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Tribunal Applications — Form Requirements — Substantial Compliance
Non-conformity with the prescribed form for an application to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal does not render the application void where the application is in writing, includes reasons, and filing fees are paid, and the deviation does not affect the substance or mislead.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review Fees — Non-Payment — Accounting Officer's Duty
An Accounting Officer has a statutory duty to advise a complainant on the required administrative review fees and where to pay them upon receipt of a complaint, and non-payment or late payment of administrative review fees is not necessarily fatal so long as the proper fees can be assessed and paid.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Accounting Officer's Duty to Decide
An Accounting Officer must make and communicate a decision on an administrative review complaint within ten days of receipt, and failure to do so entitles the aggrieved bidder to file an application before the Tribunal within ten days after the expiry of that period.
Public Procurement — Suspension of Procurement Process — Mandatory Requirement
An Accounting Officer is under a mandatory duty to immediately suspend the procurement process upon receipt of a complaint and is prohibited from entering a contract with a provider during the administrative review period and while the matter is before the Tribunal, and any contract entered during this period is in blatant breach of the law.
Public Procurement — Bid Evaluation — Responsiveness — Additional Staff
Where bidding requirements specify a minimum number of key staff positions using the phrase 'at least', a bidder's inclusion of additional staff positions beyond the stated minimum does not render the bid non-responsive, as such additional personnel constitute a superabundance that should not be a basis for disqualification.
Illiterates Protection — Bidding Documents — Mandatory Compliance
Where a bidder is illiterate within the meaning of the Illiterates Protection Act and cannot read or understand the language in which the bidding document is written, the mandatory provisions requiring the illiterate to append a mark, the witness to write their full name and address, and confirmation that the document was read over and explained to the illiterate must be complied with, and failure to comply renders the bid invalid.
Public Procurement — Contracts Committee — Disagreement with Evaluation Report
Where a Contracts Committee disagrees with the recommendations of a Procurement and Disposal Unit, it may only return the submission for review with written reasons or request independent advice from the Authority, and a decision to declare a different bidder as best evaluated bidder without following this procedure is illegal, null and void.

Legislation cited (23)

Cases cited (8)

  • Samanga Elcomplus JV v PPDA & UEDCL (Application No. 4 of 2021)
  • Vcon Construction (U) Ltd v Uganda Development Bank (Application No. 22 of 2021)
  • Samanga Elcomplus JV v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Application No. 17 of 2021)
  • Kasokoso Services Limited v Jinja School of Nursing and Midwifery (Application No. 13 of 2021)
  • Muwanga v Kyeyune (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2001)
  • Vision Scientific & Engineering Limited v Makerere University (Applications No. 26 and 27 of 2022)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority v Mbarara District Local Government (Reference No. 1 of 2020)
  • Wakiso Seven Star's Association Ltd v Wakiso District Local Government (Application No. 17 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kwikiriza v Buliisa District Local Government (Application No 28 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 27 (3 October 2022)
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.