Wakilii

Multiplex Limited v Masaka City Council (Application 15 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGPPDPAAT 18 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision following dismissal of administrative review complaint by Accounting Officer
Decision
Application dismissed; 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 held that the application was filed within the statutory ten working days from receipt of the Accounting Officer's decision, as the period runs from the date of receipt of the decision where a bidder is dissatisfied with that decision. The Tribunal further held that separate phases of a construction project, each supported by distinct contracts and completion certificates, constitute separate projects for the purpose of demonstrating specific experience in procurement evaluation. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; suspension order vacated

Facts

Masaka City Council initiated a tender for construction and rehabilitation of Masaka Recreation Grounds under open domestic bidding on December 12, 2023. Nine bidders submitted bids. On February 13, 2024, the Respondent issued a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder indicating Kaleeta Construction Ltd as the best evaluated bidder at a contract price of UGX 18,143,372,438.31. Multiplex Ltd, the Applicant, was dissatisfied and filed an administrative review complaint with the Accounting Officer on February 26, 2024. The Accounting Officer dismissed the complaint on March 6, 2024. The Applicant filed the instant application with the Tribunal on March 21, 2024, challenging the decision on grounds that the Best Evaluated Bidder failed to demonstrate specified experience and failed post-qualification due diligence. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was time-barred.

Issues

  1. Whether the instant application was filed with the Tribunal within the statutory timeframe?
  2. Whether the Best Evaluated Bidder demonstrated that it had the specified experience to perform the Contract?
  3. Whether the Best Evaluated Bidder passed the Post qualification Evaluation as mandated under the Bidding document?

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated March 25, 2024, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Time Limits for Filing Applications — Computation of Time
Where a bidder is dissatisfied with the decision made by the Accounting Officer under section 89(8) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003, the bidder may make an application to the Tribunal within ten working days from the date of receipt of the decision of the Accounting Officer, notwithstanding the literal wording of section 91I(2)(b) which creates a legal absurdity by prescribing a timeframe only for the first limb of section 89(8).
Public Procurement — Computation of Time — Public Holidays
In computing the period within which to file an application before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal, days on which the Tribunal's offices are closed, including public holidays, are excluded from the computation.
Public Procurement — Specific Experience — Phased Construction Projects
For the purposes of demonstrating specific experience in procurement evaluation, separate phases of a construction project, each supported by distinct contracts and completion certificates with clearly defined tasks, objectives, and contract sums, constitute separate and distinct projects, particularly where phasing is undertaken to manage complexity, cash flow, and speciality skills requirements.
Public Procurement — Interpretation of Solicitation Documents — Purposive Approach
In interpreting solicitation documents for the purposes of procurement evaluation, the Tribunal must adopt a purposive approach so as to give effect to the true purpose and intention of the procuring entity in preparation of the solicitation documents, having regard to extraneous material including the nature of the industry to which the bid relates.
Public Procurement — Post-Qualification Evaluation — Due Diligence
A post-qualification evaluation that includes legal, technical, and financial due diligence, including verification of previous contract performance, current commitments, physical site visits, and confirmation of bank credit lines, satisfies the requirements of the bidding document where the evaluation committee makes an affirmative determination that the best evaluated bidder is qualified to perform the contract satisfactorily.
Tribunal Jurisdiction — Hypothetical Questions — Academic Exercise
The Tribunal does not resolve issues that cannot operate to grant any actual relief or issue orders for academic purposes or in the abstract, where resolution of such issues would not change the outcome of the procurement.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • Aponye House Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 10 of 2023)
  • Prudential Assurance Uganda Limited v Busitema University (Application No. 12 of 2023)
  • Mwiru Paul v National Council for Higher Education and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Multiplex Limited v Masaka City Council (Application 15 of 2024) 2024 UGPPDPAAT 18 (15 April 2024)
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.