Wakilii

Mbarara City South Boda Boda Operators SACCO v Mbarara City Council (Application No 22 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 21 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed — Re-evaluation Ordered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision following failure of bid
Decision
Matter remitted to entity for re-evaluation of bids

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 failed to communicate a decision within the statutory ten-day period. The evaluation committee erred in applying eligibility criteria by failing to consider clarification for omissions that were not material deviations, and by not exercising discretion on the unsigned bid in the evaluation report. The Tribunal ordered re-evaluation of bids consistent with applicable law and the bidding document.

Outcome

Matter remitted to entity for re-evaluation of bids

Facts

Mbarara City Council invited bids for revenue collection from Nyamityobora Weekly Bikkade Market. Three bidders submitted bids. The evaluation committee recommended Nyamityobora Bikadde Vendors Cooperative Society Ltd for award. The Applicant's bid was rejected for alleged failure to submit proper address, list of directors with photographs, valid certificate of registration, registered powers of attorney, memorandum and articles of association, and for not being signed. The Applicant applied for administrative review to the Accounting Officer on July 7, 2022. The Applicant filed this application on July 27, 2022, contending the Accounting Officer had not issued a decision within ten days.

Issues

  1. Whether the Accounting Officer failed to make and communicate a decision within ten days as required by law?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it found that the Applicant's bid had failed.
  3. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact to declare Nyamityobora Bikadde Vendors Cooperative Society Ltd. as the best evaluated bidder while indebted to the same council.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application succeeds in part.
  • Respondent directed to re-evaluate the bids in a manner consistent with this decision, the applicable laws and the bidding document.
  • Respondent shall refund the Applicant's administrative review fees.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated July 27, 2022 is vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Statutory Time Limits for Accounting Officer's Decision
Under section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act as amended, an Accounting Officer must make and communicate a decision on an administrative review complaint within ten days of receipt, and failure to prove communication within that period entitles a bidder to apply to the Tribunal under section 89(8).
Cooperative Societies — Capacity to Contract and Institute Legal Proceedings
A Savings and Credit Cooperative Society (SACCO) established under the Cooperative Societies Act is empowered under section 55A(4)(b) and (c) to enter into contracts and institute and defend lawsuits and other legal proceedings, and participation in procurement that constitutes a business opportunity can be considered incidental to the attainment of the main objects of the society.
Company Law — Indoor Management Rule — Application to Cooperative Societies
At common law, a person dealing with or acting in good faith and without knowledge of any irregularity need not inquire about the formality of the internal proceedings of a corporation, but is entitled to assume that there has been compliance with the articles and bye-laws, and any dispute about exceeding the mandate of a cooperative society is an internal management matter for the society members and the executive.
Company Law — Authority to Institute Proceedings — Cooperative Societies
A resolution of the board of directors of a company or cooperative society is not always necessary for institution of legal proceedings in the name of the entity, and any director or chairman who is competent to exercise the powers vested in the board can give instructions for filing proceedings in the name of the entity.
Public Procurement — Bid Evaluation — Material Deviations and Clarification
Omissions in a bid such as failure to submit an address, list of directors with photographs, or certificate of registration where the bidder is a duly registered entity with an address and committee equivalent to directors do not constitute material deviations and can be cured by clarification under the Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations.
Public Procurement — Bid Evaluation — Unsigned Bids and Evaluator Discretion
Where bidding documents state that an unsigned bid may be rejected, the evaluation committee retains discretion to reject or waive the omission, and the committee must exercise that discretion and state its determination in the evaluation report; no other person has power to add to or subtract from the evaluation committee's findings except to approve or reject them.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (7)

  • Njau and others v City Council of Nairobi [1976] 1 EA 397
  • Wandera Stephen v Goodman Agencies Ltd & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 680 of 2021)
  • Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Kakooza & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 19 of 2010)
  • United Assurance Co. Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1986)
  • Meera Investments Limited v URA & Numani Mubiakulamusa (Application No. 18 of 2022)
  • My Maka Group Ltd v UNBS (Tribunal Application No. 9 of 2021)
  • Smileplast Ltd v PPDA & NAADS (Tribunal Application No. 13 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mbarara City South Boda Boda Operators SACCO v Mbarara City Council (Application No 22 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 21 (16 August 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.