Wakilii

Meera Investments Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority and Another (Application No 18 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 17 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application granted; procurement decision set aside; matter remitted to Uganda Revenue Authority for re-evaluation in accordance with law; administrative review fees to be refunded to Applicant

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 an Accounting Officer's failure to make and communicate a written administrative review decision within the statutory ten-day period under section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act constitutes a breach rendering any subsequent decision null and void. A telephone call does not satisfy the requirement for written communication. The Tribunal further held that a withdrawal of an application is not effective until approved by the Tribunal under regulation 16(3) of the Procedure Regulations. The procurement entity erred in naming a bidder as best evaluated without conducting mandatory post-qualification evaluation and where the bidder's proposal did not meet non-negotiable technical requirements regarding parking slots and disabled access provisions.

Outcome

Application granted; procurement decision set aside; matter remitted to Uganda Revenue Authority for re-evaluation in accordance with law; administrative review fees to be refunded to Applicant

Facts

Uganda Revenue Authority initiated a procurement for office space for Kampala Metro Tax Office under open domestic bidding. Three bidders submitted proposals. The evaluation committee named Numani Mubiakulamusa as best evaluated bidder on May 30, 2022, disqualifying Meera Investments Limited on price grounds. Meera applied for administrative review to the Accounting Officer on June 6, 2022, challenging the evaluation on grounds that the successful bidder's premises lacked required parking slots and disabled access provisions. The Accounting Officer failed to communicate a decision within the statutory ten-day period ending June 17, 2022. Meera filed an application with the Tribunal on June 22, 2022. The Accounting Officer purported to communicate a decision on June 22, 2022, directing re-evaluation, which resulted in Meera being named best evaluated bidder on June 29, 2022. Meera initially sought to withdraw its Tribunal application on June 23, 2022, but retracted the withdrawal on July 8, 2022. Numani sought joinder as second respondent, which was granted.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a competent Application before the Tribunal.
  2. Whether the omission by the Accounting Officer to make and communicate an administrative review decision to the Applicant by June 17, 2022 was lawful.
  3. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law and fact when he made an administrative review decision on June 22, 2022.
  4. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it named Numani Mubiakulamusa the best evaluated bidder.
  5. What reliefs are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is successful and upheld.
  • The purported decision of the 1st Respondent's Accounting Officer dated June 22, 2022; the re-evaluation and the resultant notice of best evaluated bidder dated June 29, 2022 are null and void and accordingly set aside.
  • The 1st Respondent is directed to re-evaluate the bids in a manner consistent with the decision of the Tribunal, the bidding document and the law.
  • The suspension order of the Tribunal dated June 22, 2022 is vacated.
  • The 1st Respondent shall refund the administrative review fees paid by the Applicant.
  • Each Party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Statutory Time Limits — Consequences of Non-Compliance
Under section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, an Accounting Officer must make and communicate a written decision on an administrative review complaint within ten days of receipt. A decision issued outside this statutory period is a blatant breach of the law and null and void.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Written Communication Requirement
A telephone call does not constitute written communication within the meaning of sections 89(7) and 95B of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. Both the decision and its written communication must be made within the statutory ten-day period.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Suspension of Procurement Process
Under section 89(11)(a) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, a procurement process suspended under section 89(5) upon receipt of an administrative review complaint shall remain suspended until the Tribunal makes a decision where a bidder makes an application to the Tribunal. Any procurement actions taken during the suspension period are null and void.
Civil Procedure — Withdrawal of Applications — Effectiveness
Under regulation 16(3) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016, a withdrawal of an application is not complete until approved by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has power to approve or disapprove a withdrawal. An applicant may retract a withdrawal request before the Tribunal approves it.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Evaluation Criteria — Strict Adherence
Regulation 7 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2014 and regulation 37 of the Rules and Methods Regulations require strict adherence to evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation document. The evaluation must be conducted in accordance with the criteria without amendments and based solely on the contents of the bid itself.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Post-Qualification Evaluation — Mandatory Nature
Under regulation 34 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2014, a post-qualification evaluation must be undertaken to confirm the bidder's experience, capacity, qualifications of personnel, financial capability, and facilities. Failure to conduct post-qualification where required constitutes an error in law.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (2)

  • Super Taste Ltd v Bank of Uganda (Application No. 33 of 2021)
  • MBJ Technologies Limited v Mbarara City and 2 Others (Application No. 17 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Meera Investments Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority and Another (Application No 18 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 17 (13 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.