Wakilii

Lankaran Yol Tinkinti OJSC in Joint Venture with UCA Insaat v Ministry of Works and Transport [2025] UGPPDPAAT 53

Tribunal · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Accounting Officer's decision dismissing procurement-related complaint
Decision
Application struck out for being time-barred, incompetent and incurably defective

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 it has jurisdiction to review procurement-related complaints arising from Islamic Development Bank-financed projects, as the Guidelines place responsibility for complaint resolution on the Beneficiary (Government of Uganda), and Uganda's three-tier administrative review system fulfils this obligation. However, the Application was struck out as incompetent because the Applicant filed a second procurement-related complaint after the Standstill Period had expired and after its bid validity had lapsed on February 28, 2025, thereby losing locus standi as a bidder.

Outcome

Application struck out for being time-barred, incompetent and incurably defective

Facts

The Government of Uganda through Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) initiated a tender for upgrading national roads financed by the Islamic Development Bank. Nine bids were received on August 3, 2023. After evaluation and IsDB approval, UNRA notified bidders on July 5, 2024 of its intention to award the contract to The Arab Contractors. The Applicant filed a procurement-related complaint on July 16, 2024, which was dismissed on August 7, 2024. UNRA entered into a contract with The Arab Contractors on December 18, 2024. On February 5, 2025, the Applicant filed a second complaint alleging fraud and corruption in the evaluation process. The Accounting Officer dismissed this second complaint as time-barred on February 20, 2025. The Applicant then applied to the Tribunal for review on February 28, 2025, the same day its bid validity expired.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the Application?
  2. Whether the application is competent before the Tribunal?
  3. Whether the Accounting Officer of the Respondent erred in law and fact when it subjected the Applicant's complaint to PPDA (Administrative Review) Regulations 2023 instead of Annex C of the Guidelines for the procurement of Goods, Works and related services under IsDB Project Financing?
  4. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law and fact when he dismissed the Applicant's complaint?
  5. Whether the Respondent erred in the evaluation of the bid of The Arab Contractors (Osman Ahmed Osman)?
  6. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Tribunal Jurisdiction — Procurement Financed by International Development Banks
Where a procurement is financed by an international development bank and the financing agreement places responsibility for procurement and complaint resolution on the Beneficiary (Government), the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction to review decisions of the Accounting Officer, as this does not conflict with any obligation under the financing agreement but rather fulfils the Beneficiary's obligation to resolve procurement-related complaints using its domestic legal and institutional framework.
Administrative Law — Procurement Complaints — Time Limits and Standstill Period
Under the Islamic Development Bank Guidelines for Procurement, procurement-related complaints must be filed within the Standstill Period after notification of intention to award. The filing of a second procurement-related complaint after expiry of the Standstill Period is an abuse of process, as litigation and administrative review cannot be conducted in instalments and all grievances must be presented within the stipulated time.
Administrative Law — Locus Standi — Bid Validity and Standing to Apply for Review
A bidder whose bid validity has expired is no longer a bidder in the actual sense and has no locus standi to apply for administrative review. An applicant must have locus standi throughout the duration of the application up to the date of decision by the Tribunal. Once bid validity expires, the procurement process comes to an end and any application based on an expired bid is incompetent.
Statutory Interpretation — Conflict Between Domestic Law and International Agreements
Where the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act conflicts with an obligation of the Republic of Uganda arising out of an agreement with an international organisation, the provisions of the agreement prevail over the Act. However, the mere fact that a procurement is funded by a loan and subject to a lender's procurement guidelines does not in itself oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and courts unless there is a clear provision to that effect.
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Guarding Sovereignty and Access to Justice
The jurisdiction of courts and tribunals must be guarded jealously and should not be dispensed with too lightly. It is better to err in favour of upholding jurisdiction than to turn a litigant away from the seat of justice without being heard. Courts and tribunals are duty bound to jealously guard the sovereignty of the Republic of Uganda.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (9)

  • National Information Technology Authority Uganda v Gulf Africa Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2024)
  • K-Solutions Limited v Attorney General and Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (Application No. 9 of 2020)
  • Dott Services Limited & Hes Infra Private Limited JV v Ministry of Water and Environment (Application No. 25 of 2021)
  • China Civil Engineering and Construction Corporation v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 11 of 2023)
  • Vital Capital Investments Ltd & Others v Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development (Application No. 16 of 2023)
  • Habre International Company Limited v Kassam and others [1999] 1 EA 125
  • Technology Associates Limited in Consortium with Comviva Technology Limited v Post Bank Uganda Limited (Application No. 6 of 2022)
  • Beautiful Engineering and Equipment Limited v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 15 of 2021)
  • Gabikan Engineering v Ministry of Works and Transport & Zhonghao Construction Engineering Co. Ltd (Application No. 50 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lankaran Yol Tinkinti OJSC in Joint Venture with UCA Insaat v Ministry of Works and Transport 2025 UGPPDPAAT 53 (21 March 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.