Wakilii

Palm Construction Company Limited v Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries [2024] UGPPDPAAT 44

Tribunal · 2024 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out for being filed outside the statutory time limit

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 incompetent because it was filed outside the statutory ten-day period prescribed under sections 106(8), 115(1)(a) and 115(2)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. Where an Accounting Officer fails to make and communicate an administrative review decision within the statutory timeframe, a bidder must file an application to the Tribunal within ten days from the date of expiry of that period. The Tribunal has no power to extend time limits set by statute. The application was struck out without consideration of its merits.

Outcome

Application struck out for being filed outside the statutory time limit

Facts

The Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries initiated a procurement for construction of four zonal animal diseases control centres under AVCP-1 (Lot 3-Busunju). On August 8, 2024, the Ministry displayed a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder naming F&S Uganda Limited as the successful bidder. Palm Construction Company Limited, a participating bidder, filed an administrative review complaint with the Accounting Officer on August 13, 2024, alleging that it was the lowest bidder and that F&S Uganda Limited had submitted two different bid prices, which constituted a bidding error warranting disqualification. The Accounting Officer did not make or communicate a decision within the statutory ten-day period ending August 23, 2024. In October 2024, the Respondent requested payment of administrative review fees by October 14, 2024. The Applicant expressed willingness to pay on October 18, 2024, but the Respondent stated the deadline had elapsed. The Applicant filed an application with the Tribunal on October 25, 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application is competent before the Tribunal.
  2. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact in evaluating the Applicant's bid.
  3. Whether the Respondent erred in law in determining F&S Uganda Limited as the best-evaluated bidder.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated October 25, 2024, is vacated.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Statutory Time Limits — Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Where an Accounting Officer fails to make and communicate an administrative review decision within the statutory ten-day period prescribed under section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, a bidder must file an application to the Tribunal within ten days from the date of expiry of that period as required by sections 106(8), 115(1)(a) and 115(2)(b). The Tribunal has no enabling provision to extend or enlarge time limits set by statute. Once a party fails to move within the time set by law, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is extinguished as far as the matter is concerned.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review Fees — Effect of Non-Payment
Late payment or non-payment of administrative review fees is not necessarily fatal to a complaint, provided the proper fees can be accessed and paid. Where a bidder indicates willingness to pay the required fees, it becomes incumbent on the bidder to pay using the prescribed payment system. However, communications between a procuring entity and a bidder after the expiry of the statutory period for the Accounting Officer to make and communicate a decision are inconsequential and do not affect the running of time for filing an application to the Tribunal.
Ignorance of Law — No Excuse for Non-Compliance with Statutory Time Limits
Ignorance of the law or court procedure is untenable and does not excuse non-compliance with statutory time limits. The Latin maxim 'ignorantia juris non excusat' applies. A party's lack of awareness of statutory timelines for filing an application before the Tribunal does not provide grounds for extending time or accepting a late application.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (9)

  • Lawrence Muwanga v Stephen Kyeyune (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2001)
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 918 of 2021)
  • Vision Scientific & Engineering Limited v Makerere University (Applications No. 26 and 27 of 2022)
  • Ssamanga Eelcomplus JV v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Application No. 17 of 2021)
  • Kasokoso Services Limited v Jinja School of Nursing and Midwifery (Application No. 13 of 2021)
  • Byansi Elias and Another v Kiryomunju Tofasi (HCT-05-CV-CA-0029/2010)
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (High Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2024)
  • Clear View Investments Ltd v Mbarara University School of Science and Technology (Application No. 29 of 2024)
  • Achelis Uganda Ltd v Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (Application No. 25 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Palm Construction Company Limited v Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries 2024 UGPPDPAAT 44 (13 November 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.