Wakilii

Nalu Tours and Travel Limited v Jinja City (Application 19 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2023] UGPPDPAAT 20 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision following rejection of complaint by Accounting Officer
Decision
Application dismissed; procurement process may proceed to conclusion

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 dismissed the application challenging the award of a revenue collection contract to Chrisanna Consult (U) Ltd. The restriction on bidding for more than one item in a category applied only to revenue centres under Section (a) of the procurement notice, not to items under Section (b) Markets. Chrisanna Consult (U) Ltd satisfied the experience requirements and submitted a compliant price schedule. The Deputy Town Clerk's delegation to confirm funding and sign the administrative review decision was lawful. The failure to constitute an administrative review committee did not prejudice the applicant's right to appear before the Tribunal.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement process may proceed to conclusion

Facts

Jinja City initiated a procurement for revenue collection from day street parking under procurement No. JC854/Srvcs/23-24/00017. Chrisanna Consult (U) Ltd was awarded the contract at UGX 65,000,000 per month. The Best Evaluated Bidder Notice was displayed on July 27, 2023. Nalu Tours and Travel Ltd, dissatisfied with the evaluation, sought administrative review before the Accounting Officer on August 3, 2023. The Accounting Officer rejected the complaint on August 7, 2023. Nalu Tours and Travel Ltd filed an application with the Tribunal on August 11, 2023, alleging that Chrisanna Consult (U) Ltd should have been disqualified for submitting bids for more than one item, lacking required experience, failing to comply with bidding document requirements, and having a conflict of interest through its authorised representative who was allegedly a civil servant.

Issues

  1. Whether Chrisanna Consult (U) Ltd should have been disqualified for submitting more than one bid in the impugned bidding process.
  2. Whether Chrisanna Consult (U) Ltd should have been disqualified for not being responsive to the requirements of the bidding document in procurement No. JC854/Srucs/23-24/00017.
  3. Whether Chrisanna Consult (U) Ltd should have been disqualified for not submitting an original receipt for purchase of tender documents, a copy of registered powers of attorney to the signatory of solicitation document, failure to sequentially number and initial the bid, failure to submit certified copies of certificate of incorporation, Memorandum and Articles of association and up to date annual returns.
  4. Whether Chrisanna Consult (U) Ltd should have been disqualified for having a conflict of interest because its authorised representative Idhagwe Alex Anderson is a civil servant working under the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.
  5. Whether the Administrative Review Decision of August 7, 2023 signed off by Peter Mawerere for the Town Clerk and the August 10, 2023 reply to additional information addressed to the Applicant but signed off by Lwanga Edward as Town Clerk is fatal to the administrative review process being pursued by the Applicant.
  6. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it initiated and undertook a procurement process under the authority of the Deputy Town Clerk, Mr Mawerere Peter, not being an appointed Accounting Officer under Law.
  7. Whether the Respondent erred when it omitted to constitute an Administrative Review Committee upon receipt of the Applicant's complaint to the Accounting Officer.
  8. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated August 14, 2023, is vacated.
  • The Respondent may proceed with the procurement process to its logical conclusion.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Interpretation of Bidding Restrictions — Application to Specific Categories
A restriction in a procurement notice prohibiting bidders from submitting more than one bid in a category applies only to the specific classification under which the restriction is stated, and does not extend to other classifications or sections of the procurement notice unless expressly stated.
Public Procurement — Evaluation Criteria — Experience Requirements
A bidder satisfies experience requirements in a procurement process by submitting reference letters, award letters, contract extensions, and recommendation letters from previous clients demonstrating the required years of experience in similar business, whether from completed or current assignments.
Public Procurement — Delegation of Functions by Accounting Officer
An accounting officer has the discretion to delegate procurement functions to a member of staff of the procuring and disposing entity in accordance with Section 39(a)(iii) of the PPDA Act 2003 and Regulation 29(1) of the Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006.
Administrative Review — Tribunal Jurisdiction — Scope of Review
The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 91I of the PPDA Act 2003 is to review the decision of a procuring and disposing entity, and applicants should restrict their application to challenging that decision rather than filing complaints in instalments as an afterthought. The Tribunal exercises merits review powers to stand in the shoes of the Accounting Officer as the original decision maker.
Administrative Review — Administrative Review Committee — Effect of Non-Constitution
The recommendations of an administrative review committee are merely advisory and not binding on an Accounting Officer who is duty bound to make and communicate an administrative decision within the statutory time. The failure to constitute such a committee does not prejudice an applicant's right to appear before the Tribunal.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (7)

  • Abasamia Hwolerane Association Limited v Jinja City (Application No. 12 of 2021)
  • Terra Vital Consortium v Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development (Application No. 16 of 2023)
  • Technology Associates Limited in Consortium with Comviva Technology Limited v Post Bank Uganda Limited (Application No. 6 of 2022)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority v Pawor Park Operators and Market Vendors SACCO (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2016)
  • Nalu Tours and Travel Ltd v Jinja City (Application No. 30 of 2022)
  • Quality Inspection Services Inc Japan and 2 Others v Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Consolidated Applications No. 15, 17 and 18 of 2023)
  • Rhema Engineering Company Limited v Arua City (Application No. 13 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nalu Tours and Travel Limited v Jinja City (Application 19 of 2023) 2023 UGPPDPAAT 20 (31 August 2023)
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.