Wakilii

M/S Rema (U) Ltd v Butebo District Local Government and Others (Civil Suit No. 5 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 485 · 2025 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil suit for declaratory orders and damages arising from alleged irregular procurement process; preliminary objection raised by defendants challenging jurisdiction of the High Court
Decision
Suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction; plaintiff required to exhaust statutory administrative review mechanisms before approaching the High Court

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 it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the plaintiff failed to exhaust the statutory administrative review process under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. A bidder aggrieved by a procurement decision must first complain to the Accounting Officer, then to the PPDA Authority, and then appeal to the PPDA Tribunal before approaching the High Court. The suit was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction; plaintiff required to exhaust statutory administrative review mechanisms before approaching the High Court

Facts

The plaintiff, M/S Rema (U) Ltd, participated in a competitive bidding process for construction of a Seed Secondary School in Butebo District. After submitting its bid in July 2021, the plaintiff alleges the procurement process was halted following a presidential directive, but the contract was later awarded to M/S Gali Technical Services without following PPDA rules. The plaintiff complained to the Accounting Officer in December 2021 and received a reply, but did not pursue further administrative review through the PPDA Authority or Tribunal. Instead, the plaintiff filed suit in the High Court seeking declaratory orders, damages, and injunctive relief. The defendants raised a preliminary objection that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff had not exhausted the statutory administrative review process.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging a procurement decision where the plaintiff has not exhausted the administrative review mechanisms established under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection sustained.
  • Suit dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Procurement Disputes — Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies — Requirement to Exhaust Internal Review Mechanisms Before Court Action
A bidder aggrieved by a procurement decision must exhaust the statutory administrative review process established under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act before approaching the High Court. The statutory scheme requires sequential recourse to the Accounting Officer, the PPDA Authority, and the PPDA Tribunal before an appeal may be lodged to the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Preliminary Objections — Timing and Procedure for Raising Jurisdictional Objections
A defendant who files a written statement of defence without first filing a notice of intention to defend and applying under Order 9 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules submits to the procedural jurisdiction of the court, but is not precluded from raising substantive jurisdictional objections as a preliminary point of law at any stage of the proceedings.
Statutory Interpretation — Constitutional Jurisdiction and Statutory Schemes — Harmonious Construction — Reconciling Article 139(1) with Specialised Statutory Tribunals
While Article 139(1) of the Constitution confers unlimited original jurisdiction on the High Court, this constitutional provision must be read harmoniously with enabling statutes that establish specialised administrative review mechanisms. Where Parliament has created a comprehensive statutory scheme for resolving disputes in a particular area, parties must exhaust those mechanisms before invoking the High Court's original jurisdiction, thereby giving effect to the legislative intent and preventing the statutory provisions from becoming inoperative.

Legislation cited (20)

Cases cited (6)

  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority v Peace Gloria (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2016)
  • Owners of Motor Vessel Lilian S v Caltex Oil Kenya Limited [1989] KLR 1
  • Kameke Growers Cooperative Society Limited and 7 Others v North Bukedi Cooperative Union (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1994)
  • Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority v Meera Investment Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2007)
  • Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council [1965] AC 736
  • Ozuu Brothers Enterprises v Ayikoru Milka (Civil Revision No. 2 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

M_S Rema (U) Ltd v Butebo District Local Government and Others (Civil Suit No. 5 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 485 (9 July 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.