Wakilii

Mugabi v Sembabule District Local Council (Application No 24 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 22 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of a decision to cancel a procurement process
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 the application was filed out of time and was therefore incompetent. The Accounting Officer's decision to cancel the procurement was made on 21 July 2022 but communicated to the applicant on 26 July 2022, outside the statutory ten-day timeline. Whether calculated from the date the decision should have been made or from the date it was actually communicated, the application filed on 8 August 2022 exceeded the statutory time limits under sections 89(8) and 91I(2) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003. The Tribunal has no power to extend time, and once the statutory period expires, its jurisdiction is extinguished.

Outcome

Application struck out for being filed out of time

Facts

On 16 June 2022, Sembabule District Local Government invited bids for local revenue collection services including Lumegere Cattle Market. Two bidders submitted bids: Mugerwa Fred (the applicant) and Mugabi David. On 7 July 2022, the Contracts Committee awarded the contract to Mugerwa Fred at UGX 52,000,000. On 8 July 2022, Mugabi David applied for administrative review, alleging conflict of interest. The applicant complained to the Accounting Officer on 13 July 2022. On 19 July 2022, the Accounting Officer instructed that the matter be resubmitted to the Contracts Committee with a view to disqualifying both bidders. On 20 July 2022, the Contracts Committee approved cancellation of the award and directed re-tendering. On 21 July 2022, the Accounting Officer communicated the cancellation to the bidders. The applicant filed an application for administrative review with the Tribunal on 8 August 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a competent application before the Tribunal
  2. Whether the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review the matters raised in the application
  3. Whether the summons issued by the Tribunal are valid
  4. Whether the instant application was filed out of statutory timelines
  5. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law and fact when he cancelled the procurement process

Orders

  • The application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated August 10, 2022 is vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Jurisdiction of PPDA Appeals Tribunal — Review of Cancellation Decisions
The PPDA Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction to inquire into the propriety of a procuring entity's decision to cancel a procurement process, including whether the cancellation complied with section 75 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Electronic Service — Validity and Effectiveness
Service of summons or court process by email to a party's last confirmed and used email address is effective at the time the email and its attachments are successfully transmitted from the sender's system and enter the recipient's email address, in accordance with section 15(1) of the Electronic Transactions Act 2011.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Accounting Officer's Decision — Requirement of Simultaneous Making and Communication
Under section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003, an Accounting Officer is required to undertake simultaneous actions of making a decision on a complaint and communicating it to the complainant by way of effective service within the statutory ten-day timeline. A decision made within time but communicated outside the timeline is void and of no legal consequence.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Time Limits for Filing Applications — Mandatory Nature
The time limits set in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 for filing applications with the PPDA Appeals Tribunal are mandatory, are a matter of substantive law and not mere technicalities, and must be strictly complied with. The Tribunal has no power to enlarge or extend time, and once a party fails to move within the time set by law, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is extinguished.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Calculation of Time for Filing Applications — Where Accounting Officer Fails to Decide Within Statutory Period
Where an Accounting Officer does not make or communicate a decision within ten days of receipt of a complaint, a bidder may apply to the PPDA Appeals Tribunal within ten days of the expiry of the period given for the Accounting Officer to make a decision, in accordance with sections 89(8) and 91I(2)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (13)

  • Owners of the Motor Vessel Lillian S v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR
  • Central Investment Agencies Ltd v Mbale City Council (Application No. 26 of 2021)
  • Abasamia Hwolerane Association Ltd v Jinja City Council (Application No. 18 of 2021)
  • K-Solutions Ltd v Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (Application No. 16 of 2021)
  • Beautiful Engineering & Equipment Ltd v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 15 of 2021)
  • Mulago Hill Diagnostics Ltd v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Application No. 13 of 2022)
  • Preg Tech Communications v Uganda Police (Application No. 32 of 2021)
  • Sam Akankwatsa v United Bank of Africa (Miscellaneous Application No. 1233 of 2017)
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 918 of 2021)
  • Meera Investments Limited v URA & Numani Mubiakulamusa (Application No. 18 of 2022)
  • Sanlam General Insurance v UNRA (Application No. 29 of 2021)
  • Kiyindi Electrical and Engineering Ltd v PPDA (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2020)
  • Empire Tools v PPDA (Application No. 8 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugabi v Sembabule District Local Council (Application No 24 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 22 (31 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.