Wakilii

MBJ Technologies Limited v Mbarara City and 2 Others (Application No 17 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 16 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision following unsuccessful bid for consultancy services contract
Decision
Application struck out for being time-barred; procurement process may proceed

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 struck out the application for being time-barred. The Accounting Officer's decision issued on 8 June 2022 was out of time and therefore null and void. The Applicant should have filed with the Tribunal by 13 June 2022 but filed on 17 June 2022. The Tribunal held that a bidder who applies for administrative review cannot subsequently invoke section 91I(1)(b) as a person whose rights are adversely affected to circumvent statutory time limits.

Outcome

Application struck out for being time-barred; procurement process may proceed

Facts

Mbarara City initiated procurement for consultancy services for supervision of roadworks. Four bidders submitted bids. After technical evaluation, three bidders including the Applicant were shortlisted. Following financial evaluation, the 2nd Respondent was declared best evaluated bidder. The Applicant applied for administrative review on 23 May 2022 complaining about the manner of opening financial proposals and arithmetic corrections. The Accounting Officer issued a decision on 8 June 2022 upholding one complaint and ordering re-display of the notice. The Applicant filed with the Tribunal on 17 June 2022. The Tribunal raised preliminary issues regarding timeliness of both the Accounting Officer's decision and the Tribunal application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Accounting Officer's decision was made and communicated within the time stipulated in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act
  2. Whether the application to the Tribunal was made within the time stipulated in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act
  3. Whether the Applicant could invoke section 91I(1)(b) as a person whose rights are adversely affected rather than as a bidder

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated 20 June 2022 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Accounting Officer's Decision — Statutory Time Limits
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 application within ten days of receipt. A decision issued outside this period is a blatant breach of the law and no decision at all, rendering it null and void.
Public Procurement — Appeals to Tribunal — Time Limits — Calendar Days
The time limits prescribed under sections 89(8) and 91I(2)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are calendar days, not working days. Where an Accounting Officer fails to make a decision within the specified period, a bidder must apply to the Tribunal within ten calendar days from the date of expiry of the period within which the Accounting Officer should have communicated the decision.
Public Procurement — Statutory Time Limits — Mandatory Nature
The provisions of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are mandatory and must be adhered to strictly. There is no way the Act can regulate practices in respect of public procurement unless the provisions are adhered to strictly to the letter, and non-compliance makes the proceedings fatal.
Public Procurement — Standing to Appeal — Bidder versus Person Adversely Affected
A bidder who applies for administrative review to an Accounting Officer and is dissatisfied with the decision cannot subsequently invoke section 91I(1)(b) as a person whose rights are adversely affected to circumvent statutory time limits. An applicant to the Tribunal under section 91I(1)(b) cannot have two interchangeable faces: one as a bidder and at the same time as a person whose rights are adversely affected by a decision made by the Accounting Officer.
Jurisdiction — Tribunal — Inquiry into Jurisdictional Facts
A tribunal is duty bound to inquire into the existence of facts in order to decide whether it has jurisdiction, because jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment is given.
Statutory Time Limits — Extension — No Inherent Jurisdiction
A tribunal has no residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge a period laid down by statute. Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution requiring substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities is subject to the law and is no license for ignoring existing statutory provisions.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (11)

  • K-Solutions Limited v Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (Application No. 16 of 2021)
  • Super Taste Ltd v Bank of Uganda (Application No. 33 of 2021)
  • JV KADAC-GLOBETEC v Uganda Prison Services (Application No. 04 of 2022)
  • APA Insurance Uganda Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 2 of 2022)
  • Galleria in Africa Ltd v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2017)
  • Obon Infrastructure Development JV v Mbarara City and Another (Application No. 20 of 2021)
  • K-Solutions Limited v Attorney General and Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (Application No. 9 of 2020)
  • Mbarara City and MBJ Technologies Limited v Obon Infrastructures Development JV (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2021)
  • Kasirye, Byaruhanga and Co Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1997)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Samanga Solutions Limited v Uganda Wildlife Authority (Application No. 14 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

MBJ Technologies Limited v Mbarara City and 2 Others (Application No 17 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 16 (8 July 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.