Wakilii

Magombe v Sironko District Local Government (Application 22 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGPPDPAAT 19 · 2024 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement process before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out for being filed out of time

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 while the applicant had locus standi to bring the application directly to the Tribunal on grounds of alleged conflict of interest by the Accounting Officer, the application was filed out of time. Under section 91I(2)(c) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003, an application must be filed within ten days from the date of the alleged breach. The application was due by 8 April 2024 but was filed on 17 April 2024. Statutory time limits in procurement law are matters of substantive law and must be strictly complied with. Non-compliance is fatal and extinguishes the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The application was struck out.

Outcome

Application struck out for being filed out of time

Facts

Sironko District Local Government initiated a tender for collection of local revenue from Bubbeza/Buwalasi parishes for April to June 2024. The bid submission deadline was 27 March 2024 at 10:00 a.m. Two bidders, Nabude Norah and Magombe Badiru (the applicant), submitted bids before the deadline. During bid opening, Ms. Mukazi Carol, Town Clerk of Bugusege Town Council, submitted a bid on behalf of Mr. Wabulo Godfrey at around 11:30 a.m. and requested that it be received. The PDU officials and other bidders objected. The Accounting Officer halted the procurement process and scheduled meetings with bidders for 4, 9 and 11 April 2024, which were never held. The applicant alleged abuse of office and conflict of interest by Muzaki Carol. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority on 5 April 2024 and filed this application with the Tribunal on 17 April 2024. The alleged unlawful acts occurred on 27 March 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the Application was filed within the statutory time limits?
  3. Whether the impugned procurement was conducted in accordance with the procurement laws?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated April 17, 2024, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Direct Access to Tribunal — Conflict of Interest
Where a bidder believes that the Accounting Officer has a conflict of interest in respect of a complaint, omission or breach, or that the matter cannot be handled impartially by the procuring and disposing entity, the bidder has direct access to the Tribunal under sections 89(9) and 91I(1)(c) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 without having to first file a complaint before the Accounting Officer.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Conflict of Interest — Standard of Proof
An applicant alleging conflict of interest by an Accounting Officer need not prove actual bias or partiality. The requirement is to demonstrate a sincere belief, and the basis for that belief, that the Accounting Officer has a conflict of interest or that the matter cannot be handled impartially by the procuring and disposing entity.
Statutory Interpretation — Time Limits — Computation — Exclusion of Sundays
Where a statutory deadline falls on a Sunday, that day is excluded from computation of time by virtue of section 34(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act Cap. 3, and the deadline is extended to the next working day.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Time Limits — Substantive Law — Strict Compliance
Time limits set by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities. They must be strictly complied with and non-compliance is fatal, extinguishing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no power to enlarge or extend time under the Act.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Consortium of EAA Company Ltd and East Africa Auto Technical Testing v UNBS (Application No. 31 of 2023)
  • Auto Terminal Japan Limited, Pal Auto Garage Ltd, Africa Automotive Analysis Ltd JV (Application No. 32 of 2023)
  • SMS Construction Ltd, Farrin YYISVT Ltd & STI Joint Venture v Ministry of Justice and Constitution Affairs (Application No. 07 of 2022)
  • Galleria in Africa Ltd v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2017)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
  • JV AGT S.P.A & Zhucheng Dingcheng Machinery Co. Ltd v Private Sector Foundation Uganda (Application No. 29 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Magombe v Sironko District Local Government (Application 22 of 2024) 2024 UGPPDPAAT 19 (9 May 2024)
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.