Wakilii

Mugerwa v Sembabule District Local Gorvernment (Application No 23 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 23 · 2022 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of a procurement cancellation decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out for being filed out of time; suspension order vacated

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 on the ground that it was filed out of time. 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 communicated (23 July 2022) or the date it was actually communicated (26 July 2022), the application filed on 8 August 2022 was out of time under section 91I of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003. The Tribunal held that statutory time limits are mandatory and strictly enforced, and once a party fails to move within the time set by law, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is extinguished.

Outcome

Application struck out for being filed out of time; suspension order vacated

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 notice of best evaluated bidder was not displayed. The applicant complained to the Accounting Officer on 13 July 2022. On 19 July 2022, the Accounting Officer instructed that the matter be re-submitted to the Contracts Committee with a view to disqualifying both bidders and re-tendering. 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 received the cancellation letter on 26 July 2022 and filed an application 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 application was filed out of statutory timelines
  5. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law and fact when he cancelled the procurement process

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Statutory Time Limits — Mandatory Compliance
Time limits set in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 are couched in mandatory terms, are a matter of substantive law and not mere technicalities, and must be strictly complied with. There is no enabling provision within the Act that accords the Tribunal power to enlarge or extend time.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Accounting Officer's Decision — Communication Requirement
Under section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003, the Accounting Officer is expected to undertake and perform simultaneous actions of making the decision on one hand and at the same time communicating it to the complainant by way of effective service within the statutory timelines. A decision made within time but communicated outside the statutory timeline is communicated in breach of the law, consequentially rendering the impugned decision void and of no legal consequence.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Electronic Service — Validity
Service of summons or court process electronically or by way of emails to the parties' last confirmed and used email address, that are calculated at providing parties with notice of existence of a suit or hearing date for their response or attendance, is effective. Service is effective at the time when the email and its attachments are successfully transmitted from the Tribunal's email address and system to and enter the last confirmed and used email address of the recipient.
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Procurement Appeals Tribunal — Cancellation of Procurement
The review powers of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal include the jurisdiction to inquire into the existence and non-existence of a decision by a procuring and disposing entity to cancel a procurement, and to inquire into the propriety of such cancellation under section 75 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003.
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Extinguishment by Failure to Comply with Time Limits
Once a party fails to move within the time set by law, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is extinguished as far as the matter is concerned. Jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment is given.

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.

Mugerwa v Sembabule District Local Gorvernment (Application No 23 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 23 (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.