Wakilii

Mugisa v Hoima District Local Government (Application No 10 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 10 · 2022 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of tender award decision
Decision
Application struck out after withdrawal request denied

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 denied approval for withdrawal of a procurement appeal where the withdrawal was based on an unlawful compromise. The Chief Administrative Officer acted unlawfully by issuing a new decision while an appeal was pending with a subsisting suspension order, and was functus officio having already made an administrative review decision. The Contracts Committee cannot make a new award without re-evaluation. Application struck out with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application struck out after withdrawal request denied

Facts

The Applicant challenged the Respondent's award of a tender for Siiba market to Mr. Mutembe Wilson. The Tribunal issued a suspension order on 14 March 2022. On 25 March 2022, the Applicant sought to withdraw the application, stating that another administrative review committee had upheld his complaint and recommended the contract be awarded to him instead. The committee found that Mr. Mutembe Wilson had issued a cheque as bid security contrary to bid requirements for a bank draft or cash. The Chief Administrative Officer communicated this new decision on 14 March 2022. Both the Applicant and the Chief Administrative Officer confirmed they stood by the new decision and the withdrawal request.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal should approve the Applicant's withdrawal of the application.
  2. Whether the Chief Administrative Officer acted lawfully in issuing a new decision while an appeal was pending before the Tribunal with a subsisting suspension order.
  3. Whether the Chief Administrative Officer was functus officio having already made an administrative review decision.

Orders

  • Approval to withdraw the Application is denied.
  • The application is struck out.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Functus Officio — Authority to Issue New Decision After Initial Administrative Review
An administrative officer who has made an administrative review decision is functus officio and lacks authority to issue a subsequent decision on the same matter.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Pending Appeals — Effect of Suspension Order
It is unlawful for an accounting officer to issue a new procurement decision when there is a pending appeal to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal and a subsisting suspension order.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Award Decisions — Requirement for Re-evaluation
A Contracts Committee cannot make a new award decision in the absence of a re-evaluation by the Evaluation Committee.
Administrative Law — Tribunal Procedure — Withdrawal of Applications — Unlawful Compromise
The Tribunal will not approve withdrawal of an application where the withdrawal is premised on an unlawful compromise between the parties.

Legislation cited (2)

  • PPDA Act s.89(11)(a)
  • PPDA (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016 reg.16(3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugisa v Hoima District Local Government (Application No 10 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 10 (29 March 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.