Wakilii

Plumb Base Limited v National Agricultural Advisory Services (Application No 19 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 18 · 2022 Application Dismissed 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 as incompetent; procurement 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

The Tribunal struck out the application as incompetent on the ground that the applicant lacked locus standi. The person who filed the administrative review with the Accounting Officer (Amon Bahumwire of Globe Technical Solutions Limited) was not lawfully authorised to represent the applicant under the bidding document requirements, which required registered powers of attorney. Although the application was filed within time and the misnaming of the applicant was a curable technicality, the absence of proper authorisation was fatal to the application.

Outcome

Application struck out as incompetent; procurement may proceed

Facts

National Agricultural Advisory Services commenced procurement for construction of two mini-irrigation schemes under two lots using open domestic bidding. Plumb Base Limited bid for Lot 1 but was disqualified at the detailed evaluation stage for not meeting key personnel and equipment requirements. GAT Consults Limited was declared the best evaluated bidder for both lots. Plumb Base applied for administrative review on 14 June 2022 (received 15 June 2022). The Accounting Officer dismissed the application as filed out of time. The respondent signed a contract with GAT Consults on 15 June 2022. Plumb Base then filed an application with the Tribunal on 30 June 2022. The best evaluated bidder raised preliminary objections that the application was filed by Globe Technical Solutions Limited (not the bidder) and that the person who signed the application lacked locus standi.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for administrative review filed with the Accounting Officer was filed within the stipulated time.
  2. Whether the application to the Tribunal was filed by the wrong applicant.
  3. Whether the application for administrative review to the entity and the appeal to the Tribunal were brought by a person who had locus standi.

Orders

  • The application is incompetent and is struck out.
  • The entity may continue with the procurement to its logical conclusion.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated 30th June 2022 is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Computation of Time — Application for Administrative Review
In computing the ten working days within which a bidder must file an application for administrative review under section 89(3)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, the period runs from the day after the bidder first became aware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint, excluding weekends and public holidays, in accordance with section 34(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act.
Civil Procedure — Parties — Misnomer — Curable Technicality
The omission of a word in a party's corporate name (such as omitting 'Uganda' from 'Plumb Base Uganda Limited') constitutes a curable technicality and not a wrong party, provided the identity of the party is clear and no prejudice results.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Powers of Attorney
Where bidding documents require registered powers of attorney as the written confirmation of authorisation to sign bids and represent bidders, a person without such registered powers of attorney lacks locus standi to file an application for administrative review on behalf of the bidder, even if instructed by letter from the bidder's authorised representative.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Competence of Application — Conditions Precedent
For an application for administrative review to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal to be competent under section 89(8) of the Act, the following conditions must be met: (a) the application must be made by a bidder as defined in section 3; (b) the bidder must have applied to the Accounting Officer for administrative review under section 89(1); (c) the Accounting Officer must have made and communicated a decision within 10 days; and (d) the bidder must be aggrieved by the Accounting Officer's decision.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Representation — Recognised Agents
In public procurement proceedings in Uganda, unless otherwise stated in the bidding document, a registered power of attorney is the recognised means through which a bidder can appoint a representative to sign its bid and represent the bidder in subsequent correspondence with the procuring entity.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (2)

  • Swift Safaris Co Limited v Kenza John (Miscellaneous Application No. 663 of 2019)
  • JV Kadac-Global Tec v Uganda Prisons Service (Application No. 4 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Plumb Base Limited v National Agricultural Advisory Services (Application No 19 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 18 (21 July 2022)
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.