Wakilii

National Information Technology Authority Uganda v Gulf Africa Limited (Civil Appeal 126 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 38 · 2025 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the decision of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Decision of the PPDA Appeals Tribunal set aside; procurement process may proceed

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

Held that where World Bank Standard Procurement Documents are used in a procurement financed under a Financing Agreement with the International Development Association, the complaints management procedure in the Procurement Management Manual prevails over the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act by virtue of section 3(1) of the Act. The Procurement Management Manual provides that complaints in such procurements are resolved by the borrowing entity subject to World Bank review and clearance, not by the PPDA Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction. Further held that serving a witness summons on the Accounting Officer on the same day as the hearing without sufficient notice to appear and submit documents, and proceeding to cancel the procurement without prior notice, violated the constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28(1).

Outcome

Decision of the PPDA Appeals Tribunal set aside; procurement process may proceed

Facts

The appellant initiated a procurement for the supply of 2,000 devices (1,000 desktops and 1,000 laptops) using Open International Competitive Bidding. The procurement was financed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development under the Uganda Digital Acceleration Project Government Network (UDAP-GOVNET). The respondent submitted a bid but was disqualified for failing to demonstrate specific experience of having executed at least two contracts within the last three years, each with a minimum value of Four Billion Uganda Shillings. The respondent challenged the disqualification through an administrative review to the appellant's Accounting Officer, who dismissed it. The respondent then applied to the PPDA Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal cancelled the procurement process on the basis that the appellant failed to provide the procurement action file and bids. The appellant appealed, contending that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the procurement was governed by World Bank Standard Procurement Documents under a Financing Agreement and that the Tribunal violated the right to a fair hearing by serving a witness summons on the same day as the hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the PPDA Appeals Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the application where the procurement was financed by the World Bank and subject to World Bank Standard Procurement Documents under a Financing Agreement between Uganda and the International Development Association.
  2. Whether the complaints management procedure in the Procurement Management Manual conflicts with the complaints-handling procedures in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act.
  3. Whether the PPDA Appeals Tribunal denied the appellant a fair hearing by serving a witness summons on the same day as the hearing and requiring the Accounting Officer to attend and submit documents without sufficient notice.
  4. Whether the Tribunal erred in cancelling the procurement process without giving the appellant prior notice and an opportunity to show cause.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Decision of the PPDA Appeals Tribunal in Application No. 39 of 2024 set aside.
  • Proceedings and decision of the Tribunal declared null and void.
  • Appellant may proceed with the procurement process in procurement reference no. NITA-U/UDAP/SUPLS/2023-2024/00012 to its logical conclusion.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction of PPDA Appeals Tribunal — World Bank Financed Procurements — Conflict of Laws
Where a procurement is financed under a Financing Agreement between the Government of Uganda and the International Development Association of the World Bank and is conducted using World Bank Standard Procurement Documents, the complaints management procedure in the Procurement Management Manual formed under the Financing Agreement prevails over the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act by virtue of section 3(1) of the Act, and the PPDA Appeals Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear procurement-related complaints.
Section 3(1) PPDA Act — Conflict Between Domestic Law and International Obligations
Section 3(1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act provides that where the Act conflicts with an obligation of the Republic of Uganda arising out of an agreement with one or more States or with an international organisation, the provisions of the agreement shall prevail over the Act. This provision applies to subsidiary documents and manuals adopted under a Financing Agreement, including a Procurement Management Manual that prescribes a complaints mechanism different from that in the PPDA Act.
World Bank Procurement Regulations — Complaints Mechanism — No Recourse to PPDA Tribunal
Where World Bank Standard Procurement Documents are used, the World Bank Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers specify a detailed complaints mechanism that does not provide for the application of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act or for recourse to the PPDA Appeals Tribunal. Procurement-related complaints in such procurements can only be made to the Executive Director of the procuring entity, subject to World Bank review and clearance.
Procurement Management Manual — Complaints Using National Bidding Documents Versus World Bank Documents
The Procurement Management Manual distinguishes between complaints involving contracts where World Bank Standard Procurement Documents are used and complaints involving contracts using National Standard Bidding Documents. Only the latter are subject to the complaints mechanism under the PPDA law, including the two-tier process involving the Accounting Officer and the PPDA Appeals Tribunal.
Jurisdiction — Proceedings Without Jurisdiction Are Null and Void
Proceedings undertaken by a court or tribunal without jurisdiction are a nullity. Where a tribunal lacks jurisdiction over a matter, its proceedings and decision are null and void.
Right to Fair Hearing — Adequate Notice — Witness Summons
Article 28(1) of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. This includes the right to adequate notice. A witness summons served on the same day as the hearing, requiring the witness to attend and submit documents without sufficient notice, violates the right to a fair hearing.
Fair Hearing — Notice to Show Cause — Cancellation of Procurement
A tribunal's decision to cancel a procurement process without giving the procuring entity prior notice and an opportunity to show cause why the process should not be cancelled is a violation of the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 28(1) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kasozi Lawrence v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2009)
  • Henry Kifamunte v Uganda (1999) 2 EA 127
  • Uganda Railways Corporation v Ekwaru D.O and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2019)
  • Dr Kayina Vincent v Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioner's Council (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0163 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

National Information Technology Authority Uganda v Gulf Africa Limited (Civil Appeal 126 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 38 (26 February 2025)
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.