Wakilii

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority v Basaar Arua Bus Operators Cooperative Society Limited (CIVIL APPEAL No. 0004 OF 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 5 · 2017 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 Tribunal (arising from PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 6 of 2015)
Decision
Appeal partly allowed: findings of PPDA Tribunal upheld but costs award set aside

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations fading — 5 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. 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

The High Court held that the PPDA Tribunal, as an external administrative merits review tribunal, did not err in examining whether the respondent's bid had expired at the time PPDA considered the application, even though this was not raised in the parties' written submissions. The Tribunal has statutory authority under section 91I(6) of the PPDA Act to conduct a fresh review of all relevant material, including obvious facts the appellant ought to have considered. However, the Tribunal improperly exercised its discretion in awarding costs without affording the appellant a hearing and without providing reasons.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed: findings of PPDA Tribunal upheld but costs award set aside

Facts

Yumbe District Local Government initiated procurement for management of Merwa Market for FY 2015/2016. The bidding document required a written commitment to pay three months in advance. The respondent's bid was rejected at preliminary evaluation for failure to attach this commitment. The respondent applied for administrative review to the Accounting Officer, who rescinded the contract award. The PPDA Authority (appellant) disagreed and rejected the respondent's application, finding the Evaluation Committee was correct in rejecting the bid and that requesting additional documents under Regulation 74(1) would violate Regulation 74(2)(c) as the commitment was material. The respondent appealed to the PPDA Tribunal. The appellant raised a preliminary objection that the respondent's bid had expired (30-day validity period: 8 May to 7 June 2015), yet PPDA considered the application on 4 August 2015, long after expiry. The Tribunal upheld the respondent's application on the basis that PPDA erred in entertaining an application concerning an expired bid, vacated the decisions, ordered refund of fees, and awarded costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the PPDA Tribunal erred in considering the validity of the respondent's bid beyond the preliminary objection raised by the appellant.
  2. Whether the PPDA Tribunal erred in deciding that the appellant's decision of 4 August 2015 was incorrect.
  3. Whether the PPDA Tribunal improperly treated the appellant's preliminary objection as a concession that its decision was incorrect.
  4. Whether the PPDA Tribunal erred in upholding the respondent's application without considering its merits.
  5. Whether the PPDA Tribunal properly exercised its jurisdiction as an external administrative merits review tribunal.
  6. Whether the PPDA Tribunal erred in awarding costs of UGX 750,000 to the respondent without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard and without furnishing reasons.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds only as regards the award of costs to the respondent.
  • The award of costs of UGX 750,000 to the respondent by the PPDA Tribunal is set aside.
  • The appeal against the findings of the PPDA Tribunal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — PPDA Tribunal — Powers and Functions — Merits Review Jurisdiction
The PPDA Tribunal, as an external administrative merits review tribunal, exercises the powers of the original procurement entity decision-maker and stands in the shoes of the primary decision-maker. It must reconsider the facts, law, and policy aspects of the original decision and determine the correct or preferable decision on the material before the Tribunal, not limited to what was before the original decision-maker.
Administrative Law — Merits Review — Distinction from Judicial Review
Administrative merits review is wider than judicial review and involves fresh consideration of both the factual basis and the lawfulness of a decision. Unlike judicial review, an external administrative merits review tribunal is not limited to examining the process by which a decision was made but may reconsider the substance of the decision-maker's assessment of the facts and remake the decision.
Administrative Law — PPDA Tribunal — Inquisitorial Function — Framing Issues Beyond Parties' Submissions
The PPDA Tribunal is not obliged to limit its determination to the case articulated by the parties. It may frame issues differently and consider obvious facts or points of law that are part of the material before it, even if not raised by the parties, provided all parties are afforded procedural fairness. Failure to make an obvious inquiry about a critical fact could constitute a failure to review.
Administrative Law — PPDA Tribunal — Substitute Decisions — Powers under Section 91I(6)
Section 91I(6) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Amendment) Act, 2011 confers wide powers on the PPDA Tribunal to affirm, vary, or set aside a decision of PPDA and make a substitute decision or remit for reconsideration. The Tribunal is authorised to exercise all powers and discretions conferred on the original decision-maker based on material that was and ought to have been before that person, whether or not it was taken into account.
Administrative Law — PPDA Tribunal — Award of Costs — Natural Justice
Before awarding costs, the PPDA Tribunal must afford the party to be affected by the costs order a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal must furnish reasons for the award and indicate how costs were assessed. Failure to do so constitutes an improper exercise of discretion.
Administrative Law — PPDA Tribunal — Award of Costs — Principles Governing Discretion
Prima facie, parties before the PPDA Tribunal ought to bear their own costs unless the Tribunal, in the proper exercise of discretion, considers it fair to award costs having regard to a party's conduct such as failure to comply with orders, seeking unnecessary adjournments, causing avoidable delay, making applications with no tenable basis, or conducting proceedings vexatiously.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 31 ALR 666
  • Dr David Bennett AO QC, 'Balancing Judicial Review and Merits Review,' (2000) 53 Admin Review 3
  • Australian Law Reform Commission, Managing Justice: A Review of the Federal Civil Justice System (ALRC 89), Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 2000, at p 758 [9.11]

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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 Basaar Arua Bus Operators Cooperative Society Limited (CIVIL APPEAL No. 0004 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 5 (24 January 2017)
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.