PregTech Communications Limited v Uganda Police Force (Application No 32 of 2021)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the application because the purported cancellation by the Accounting Officer lacked Contracts Committee approval and was therefore invalid. The Accounting Officer erred by failing to make and communicate a decision within the statutory ten-day period under section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act as amended. However, the Applicant's substantive complaints were premature: bidders have no statutory right to progress updates before the notice of best-evaluated bidder is issued, debrief is only required after contract signing, and complaints about competitor documents should be raised after evaluation is complete. The Tribunal substituted its own cancellation of the procurement process.

Outcome

Procurement process cancelled by the Tribunal; Accounting Officer's decision set aside; administrative review fees refunded to Applicant

Facts

Uganda Police Force invited bids for supply of a Video Spectral Comparator with Microscope. Preg-Tech Communications Limited submitted a bid on 17 September 2021. On 8 November 2021, the Applicant wrote to the Accounting Officer alleging that a competitor, Tel Care Ltd, had submitted a counterfeit manufacturer's authorisation. Having received no response, the Applicant filed an administrative review application on 17 November 2021, complaining of lack of communication on procurement progress, no debrief, and failure to investigate the fraud allegation. The Accounting Officer invited the Applicant to appear before an Administrative Committee on 6 December 2021. On 8 December 2021, the Applicant lodged this application with the Tribunal. On 9 December 2021, the Accounting Officer communicated findings and purported to cancel the procurement under a repealed statutory provision. The Respondent did not formally respond to the Tribunal application.

Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this application.
2. Whether the Accounting Officer of the Respondent erred in fact and law when he failed or omitted to make and communicate a decision on the complaint of the Applicant.
3. Whether the Applicant as a bidder had not received any communication from the entity on the progress of the procurement.
4. Whether no debrief was made.
5. Whether there was failure to respond to the allegation of fraud and corruption with respect to the manufacturer's authorisation of Tel Care Ltd.
6. Whether in light of the fact that Tel Care Ltd submitted a false and forged manufacturer's authorisation, the bid of Tel Care Ltd was non-responsive to the detailed evaluation criteria.
7. What reliefs are available to the Applicant.

Orders

• Application succeeds in part.
• The decision of the Respondent's Accounting Officer dated 9th December 2021 is set aside.
• The procurement is cancelled by the Tribunal.
• The Respondent shall refund the Applicant's administrative review fees.
• Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (20)

• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.26(1)(h)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.26(1)(i)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.48
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.75
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.89(1)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.89(2)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.89(7)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.89(8)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.91I(2)(b)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.91I(3)(a)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Amendment) Act 15 of 2021 s.34
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2014 reg.3(1)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2014 reg.3(2)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2014 reg.5(1)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2014 reg.5(2)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Contracts) Regulations 2014 reg.4(1)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Contracts) Regulations 2014 reg.6
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Administrative Review) Regulations 2014
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Rules and Methods for Procurement of Supplies, works and Non-Consultancy Services) Regulations 2014 reg.66(3)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations No.16 of 2016 reg.25(1)(a)

Cases cited (5)

• DOTT Services Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 3 of 2017)
• Abasamia Hwolerane Association Ltd v Jinja City Council (Application No. 12 of 2021)
• Globe World Engineering (U) Limited v Jinja City Council (Application No. 11 of 2021)
• Sitenda Sebalu v Sam K. Njuba & The Electoral Commission (Supreme Court Election Petition Appeal No. 26 of 2007)
• Saba Engineering Private Limited Company & Hersun Consult Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 28 of 2021)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Kizito v Uganda Police Force and Another (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 192 of 2023)

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