Wakilii

Nami Hardware Limited v Mbale District Local Government (Application 14 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGPPDPAAT 17 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement re-evaluation decision following earlier Tribunal directive
Decision
Application dismissed; procurement re-evaluation upheld; 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 applicant had locus standi to apply directly to the Tribunal under section 91(1)(c) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 based on a well-founded belief that the Accounting Officer could not handle the complaint impartially. The Tribunal found that the re-evaluation was conducted lawfully within the prescribed timeline and that the applicant's bid was rightfully disqualified for multiple non-compliances with bidding requirements, including failure to provide project-specific equipment lease agreements and typographical errors in personnel documentation that should have been clarified. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement re-evaluation upheld; suspension order vacated

Facts

Mbale District Local Government initiated procurement for construction of a three-classroom block at Jewa Primary School using open domestic bidding in November 2023. Five bidders submitted bids. On December 21, 2023, Gebana Company Ltd was declared best evaluated bidder. Nami Hardware Ltd challenged this award before the Accounting Officer and the Tribunal (Application No. 7 of 2024). On February 19, 2024, the Tribunal set aside the award and directed re-evaluation within ten working days. Following re-evaluation, Gebana Company Ltd was again declared best evaluated bidder on February 29, 2024. Nami Hardware Ltd applied directly to the Tribunal on March 4, 2024, seeking review of the re-evaluation decision, alleging bias and procedural irregularities. The Tribunal held an oral hearing via Zoom on March 19, 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the re-evaluation of the bids was lawfully conducted by the Respondent?
  3. Whether the Applicant's bid was rightfully disqualified by the Respondent?
  4. What reliefs are applicable to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated March 4th, 2024, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Direct Application to Tribunal — Belief of Bias
A bidder may apply directly to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal under section 91(1)(c) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 where the bidder holds a well-founded belief that the Accounting Officer has a conflict of interest or that the procuring entity cannot handle the complaint impartially. The belief must be particularised with specific circumstances demonstrating potential bias.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Re-evaluation — Composition of Evaluation Committee
Where a tribunal directs re-evaluation of bids, it is not a legal requirement that the re-evaluation be conducted by a newly appointed evaluation committee unless the tribunal's directive specifically requires reconstitution of the committee. A procuring entity may rely on the originally appointed evaluation committee to conduct the re-evaluation.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Bid Evaluation — Typographical Errors — Clarification
Typographical errors in personnel documentation, such as minor spelling variations in names where supporting academic and professional certificates consistently show the correct name, constitute honest mistakes that may be rectified by the procuring entity seeking clarification under regulation 7 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2023, rather than grounds for automatic disqualification.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Equipment Requirements — Lease Agreements — Project Specificity
Where a bidder does not own proposed equipment and relies on leased equipment, the lease agreement must be specific to the project being procured. A general lease agreement not specific to the project is fatal to the bid, as it fails to ensure that the equipment is secured in advance for execution of the contract and that the bidder's ability to perform is not diminished. Further, in the absence of a plausible link between the registered owner of equipment and the purported lessor, the procuring entity cannot verify that the equipment will be dedicated to the contract.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Abasamia Hwolerane Association Ltd v Jinja City Council (Application No. 18 of 2021)
  • SMS Construction Limited and Another v Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs (Application No. 7 of 2022)
  • EAA Company Ltd v UNBS (Application No. 21 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nami Hardware Limited v Mbale District Local Government (Application 14 of 2024) 2024 UGPPDPAAT 17 (25 March 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.