Wakilii

Purearc Engineering Company Limited v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited [2025] UGPPDPAAT 33

Tribunal · 2025 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 as time-barred

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 time-barred. The applicant filed its application on July 2, 2025, two days after the statutory deadline of June 30, 2025. Under section 115(2)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, an aggrieved bidder must file an application within ten days after the expiry of the period for the Accounting Officer to respond. The Tribunal held that timelines in procurement statutes are mandatory and the Tribunal has no power to extend time. Once the statutory period expires, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is extinguished.

Outcome

Application struck out as time-barred

Facts

Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited initiated a procurement for last mile electricity connections under five lots using open domestic bidding. The procurement was advertised on February 21, 2025, and bids were opened on March 14, 2025. Purearc Engineering Company Limited submitted a bid for Lot 3. On May 26, 2025, the respondent issued a Best Evaluated Bidder Notice indicating that the applicant had been disqualified at the technical evaluation stage for demonstrating only four years of general experience in electrical installation works instead of the required five years and for lacking specific experience in similar last-mile projects. On June 7, 2025, the respondent cancelled the procurement process, citing pertinent issues raised by some bidders. The applicant lodged an administrative review complaint with the respondent's Accounting Officer on June 10, 2025. Having received no response within the statutory ten-day period, the applicant filed an application before the Tribunal on July 2, 2025, challenging both the disqualification and the cancellation.

Issues

  1. Whether the instant Application is competent before the Tribunal
  2. Whether the Respondent's Accounting Officer erred in law and fact when it omitted to make and communicate a decision upon receipt of the Applicant's application for Administrative Review
  3. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it cancelled the procurement process
  4. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it disqualified the Applicant's bid
  5. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated July 2, 2025, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Statutory Timelines — Mandatory Nature
Timelines prescribed in procurement statutes are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. The Tribunal has no power under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act to extend or enlarge time. Once a party fails to file within the statutory period, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is extinguished.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Time for Filing Application — Commencement of Limitation Period
Where an Accounting Officer fails to make and communicate a decision within ten days of receiving an administrative review complaint under section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, the aggrieved bidder must file an application before the Tribunal within ten days from the date of expiry of that period, pursuant to sections 106(8) and 115(2)(b) of the Act.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Notice of Intention to Appeal — Effect on Limitation Period
Service of a notice of intention to file an application on an Accounting Officer has no bearing on the statutory timelines within which an applicant must file an application before the Tribunal. Failure to file such a notice does not vitiate the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and the statutory limitation period continues to run before and after service of the notice.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (5)

  • Multiplex Limited v Masaka City (Registry Application No. 15 of 2024)
  • Buu-Lepu Foundation Limited v Lira City Council (Registry Application No. 15 of 2025)
  • Clear View Investments Limited v Mbarara University School of Science and Technology (Registry Application No. 29 of 2024)
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (High Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2024)
  • D&D Law Publishing House Limited v Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation (Registry Application No. 4 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Purearc Engineering Company Limited v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited 2025 UGPPDPAAT 33 (23 July 2025)
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.