Wakilii

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority v Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors Cooperative Society Limited (CIVIL APPEAL No. 0005 OF 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 13 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from the decision of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Appeal partly allowed — PPDA Tribunal's substantive findings upheld but costs award set aside

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the PPDA Appeals Tribunal correctly found that Arua District Local Government should not have ignored the Government Policy on Development and Management of Markets even in the absence of a qualifying registered association, because Local Governments have an implicit duty to disseminate such policies and sensitise market vendors to form associations. The Tribunal was entitled in a merits review to consider the unlawful customisation of the Standard Bidding Document even though not raised by the parties, provided natural justice was observed. The Tribunal's failure to give notice before deciding on customisation was a procedural violation, but did not occasion adverse civil consequences and was therefore inconsequential. However, the Tribunal erred in awarding costs of shs. 2,000,000/= without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard and without providing reasons. Appeal dismissed except as to the award of costs, which was set aside.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed — PPDA Tribunal's substantive findings upheld but costs award set aside

Facts

Arua District Local Government invited bids for management of Kubala Market in April 2015. The respondent SACCO, one of three bidders, was eliminated on grounds of insufficient financial capacity and non-compliance with requirements for previous contracts. The respondent applied for administrative review to the Chief Administrative Officer, then to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA), both of which rejected the application. The respondent then applied to the PPDA Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the procuring entity and PPDA had erred in disregarding the Government Policy on Development and Management of Markets (2007) which reserved priority for market vendors' SACCOs. The Tribunal also found, on its own motion, that the procuring entity had unlawfully customised a Standard Bidding Document issued for vehicle parking areas and applied it to market management without PPDA approval, rendering the entire procurement process void. The Tribunal set aside the PPDA's decision, directed the procuring entity to implement the Government policy, refunded the respondent's administrative review fee, and awarded shs. 2,000,000/= in costs. PPDA appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the PPDA Appeals Tribunal erred in finding that Arua District Local Government failed to implement the Government Policy on the Development and Management of Markets.
  2. Whether the PPDA Appeals Tribunal erred in finding that a procuring entity cannot ignore Government Policy on management of markets simply because there is no registered association of stall owners.
  3. Whether the PPDA Appeals Tribunal erred in deciding that the application succeeded despite finding that the respondent's members did not operate or own stalls at Kubala Market.
  4. Whether the PPDA Appeals Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice by framing the customisation of bidding documents as a ground for review without notice to the parties.
  5. Whether the PPDA Appeals Tribunal erred in deciding that the procuring entity used a bidding document that was a deviation from the Standard Bidding Document without seeking approval from the Authority.
  6. Whether the award of costs of shs. 2,000,000/= by the PPDA Tribunal was proper.

Orders

  • Appeal succeeds only as regards the award of costs to the respondent.
  • Appeal against the findings of the PPDA Tribunal dismissed.
  • Award of costs of shs. 2,000,000/= by the PPDA Tribunal to the respondent set aside.
  • Respondent awarded half the costs of this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Government Policy — Duty to Implement — Local Government Obligation to Disseminate
Local Government authorities have an implicit duty to disseminate Central Government policies and sensitise beneficiaries to take advantage of them. A duty to follow policy guidelines in procurement includes a duty to ensure potential beneficiaries are aware of the policy; otherwise the policy fails of implementation at the procurement stage.
Administrative Law — Government Policy — Procurement — Restricted Bidding for Market Management
The Government Policy on Development and Management of Markets in Cities, Municipalities and Towns (2007) effectively ruled out the use of Open Domestic Bidding for procurement of services for market management and mandated Restricted Domestic Bidding limited to registered associations of sitting market vendors. Where no qualifying association exists, the Local Government must itself develop the market and rent it to vendors, not undertake open bidding.
Statutory Interpretation — Policy — Balancing Competing Principles — Value for Money versus Market Stability
Where a government policy consciously subordinates the principle of achieving best value for money through open competition in order to promote harmony, stability and a peaceful working environment in markets, courts will not question the wisdom of such policy decisions. The weighing of social, economic, and political considerations to arrive at a course or principle of action is the proper role of government, not the courts.
Administrative Law — Merits Review — Scope and Function — External Review Tribunals
External administrative merits review involves standing in the shoes of the original decision maker and reconsidering the facts, law and policy aspects of the original decision to determine the correct or preferable decision. Unlike judicial review, merits review tribunals may examine the substance of the decision maker's assessment of the facts and remake the decision. The tribunal may take an inquisitorial function and is not limited to the case as articulated by the parties, provided natural justice is observed.
Administrative Law — Merits Review — Tribunal Powers — Consideration of Issues Not Raised by Parties
An external administrative merits review tribunal exercising the power to set aside and substitute decisions is not obliged to limit its determination to the case articulated by the parties. Where evidence or material accepted or not rejected raises a case on a basis not articulated by the applicant, the tribunal may frame the case differently, provided all parties are given notice and an opportunity to be heard on the point.
Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Audi Alteram Partem — Merits Review Tribunals
Where a merits review tribunal identifies evidence or a legal point which has not been ventilated by the parties but is pivotal to the issues to be decided, it must bring that matter to the attention of the parties at the earliest stage and give them a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Failure to do so is a violation of natural justice. However, the decision will be vacated only if the violation occasioned a miscarriage of justice or adverse civil consequences.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Standard Bidding Documents — Customisation and Deviation
Regulation 48(1) of the Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006 is limited to minor or cosmetic changes to Standard Bidding Documents. Where a procuring entity customises a Standard Bidding Document issued for one purpose (vehicle parking management) and applies it to a substantially different purpose (market management), this is not a minor change but an extensive deviation requiring prior written approval from PPDA under Regulations 5(1)(c)(ii) and 61. A procurement undertaken with an unlawfully customised document is void ab initio.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (8)

  • X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 3 All ER 353
  • Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923
  • Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 550
  • Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 31 ALR 666
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v AM [2015] UKUT 656 (IAC)
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v Maheshwaran [2002] EWCA Civ 173
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v Maheshwaran [2002] EWCA Civ 173
  • Peace Gloria v PPDA (PPDA Tribunal application No. 3 of 2015)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority v Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors Cooperative Society Limited (CIVIL APPEAL No. 0005 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 13 (23 February 201
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.