Wakilii

MBJ Technologies Ltd v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authourity and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 171 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 59 · 2021 Judicial Review Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of a decision by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Tribunal decision quashed; procurement cancellation set aside; injunction granted restraining implementation of tribunal decision

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice by cancelling a procurement process without affording the applicant, who had been declared the best evaluated bidder, the right to be heard. The tribunal's decision was void for procedural impropriety. Judicial review was the appropriate remedy as the applicant was not a party to the tribunal proceedings and could not appeal under the statutory framework.

Outcome

Tribunal decision quashed; procurement cancellation set aside; injunction granted restraining implementation of tribunal decision

Facts

Mbarara City advertised a tender for consultancy services for road rehabilitation. After technical and financial evaluation, MBJ Technologies Ltd was declared the best evaluated bidder. Before the financial bids were opened, Obon Infrastructure Development JV (3rd Respondent) lodged an administrative review application alleging short notice and non-disclosure of technical scores. The Accounting Officer dismissed the application on grounds that it was filed after the display period and the review fee was paid by post-dated cheque. The 3rd Respondent appealed to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority, which also dismissed the application on the basis that a post-dated cheque was not valid payment. The 3rd Respondent then appealed to the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal, set aside the earlier decisions, and cancelled the entire procurement process. MBJ Technologies Ltd was not made a party to the tribunal proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether this application is amenable to judicial review.
  2. Whether the Applicant exhausted the existing remedies available under the law before filing this application.
  3. Whether the Applicant has grounds for judicial review.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Declaration that the decision of the tribunal dated 17th May 2021 which cancelled the procurement for Cluster 6 under Procurement Ref. MCC 825/USMID/SRVCS/20-21/00001 is void.
  • Order of certiorari issued quashing the decision of the Tribunal dated 17th May 2021 which cancelled the procurement for Cluster 6 under Procurement Ref. MCC 825/USMID/SRVCS/20-21/00001.
  • Order of injunction issued restraining the Respondents from implementing the decision of the Tribunal dated 17th May 2021 which cancelled the procurement for Cluster 6 under Procurement Ref. MCC 825/USMID/SRVCS/20-21/00001.
  • The 3rd Respondent ordered to pay the Applicant the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Public Body Exercising Statutory Functions
An application is amenable to judicial review where the body under challenge is a public body whose actions can be challenged by judicial review and the subject matter involves claims based on public law principles rather than enforcement of private law rights.
Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Remedies — Statutory Appeal Rights
Where a statutory appeal right is limited to parties to the proceedings before a tribunal, a person affected by the tribunal's decision but not made a party has no alternative remedy and may proceed by way of judicial review without first exhausting other remedies.
Natural Justice — Right to Be Heard — Affected Parties
A tribunal exercising quasi-judicial functions must afford a right to be heard to any person whose legal interests will be directly affected by its decision, regardless of whether that person was a party to earlier proceedings in the administrative review process.
Procedural Impropriety — Failure to Join Necessary Parties
Where a tribunal cancels a procurement process without joining the declared best evaluated bidder as a party to the proceedings, the tribunal commits procedural impropriety by failing to observe the rules of natural justice, rendering its decision void.
Judicial Review — Scope of Review — Decision-Making Process
In judicial review, the court is concerned with the decision-making process and whether due process was followed, not with the substantive correctness of the decision itself or alleged illegalities in the underlying administrative action.
Public Procurement — Best Evaluated Bidder — Legal Interest
A bidder declared as the best evaluated bidder in a procurement process acquires a legal interest in any subsequent decision affecting that procurement, even if a formal Best Evaluated Bidder Notice has not yet been issued.
Joinder of Parties — Purpose and Principles
The purpose of joining parties to proceedings is to enable the court to deal with matters brought before it and to avoid multiplicity of pleadings. A party should be joined if they have a high interest in the case and the orders sought directly and legally affect that party, regardless of whether there is a cause of action against them.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (11)

  • Kercan Prosper v Attorney General and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 308 of 2017)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister of the Civil Service [1985] AC 174
  • Twinomuhangi v Kabaale District and Others (2006) HCB 130
  • Twinomugisha Moses v Rift Valley Railways (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 212 of 2009)
  • Kyamanywa Andrew K Tumusiime v IGG (Miscellaneous Application No. 243 of 2008)
  • Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
  • Roko Construction Ltd v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2017)
  • Galleria in Africa v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2017)
  • Makula International v Cardinal Emmanuel Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors' Cooperative Society Ltd v Arua Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Cause No. 003 of 2016)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

MBJ Technologies Ltd v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authourity and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 171 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 59 (29 July 2021)
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.