Pynet Technologies SMC Limited v Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development (Application 1 of 2024)
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 review application on 2 January 2024, beyond the ten-day statutory deadline which expired on 18 December 2023. The Tribunal held that timelines in procurement statutes are mandatory and the Tribunal has no power to extend them. Once a party fails to move within the time set by law, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is extinguished.
Outcome
Application struck out as time-barred; suspension order vacated
Facts
The Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development initiated a tender for procurement of ICT equipment under World Bank funding. Six bidders submitted bids. On 3 November 2023, the Ministry issued a Notification of Intention to Award to MFI Document Solutions Ltd. Pynet Technologies SMC Ltd's bid was rejected on grounds that its bid security expired on 23 October 2023 instead of the required 17 November 2023, and that its Manufacturer's Authorisation Form from Kyocera was found to be fake. Pynet filed a complaint with the Accounting Officer on 15 November 2023. The Accounting Officer made a decision on 5 December 2023 but communicated it on 7 December 2023 after World Bank approval. Pynet filed an application for review with the Tribunal on 2 January 2024.
Issues
- Whether the Application before the Tribunal is competent?
- Whether the Respondent erred when it disqualified the Applicant's bid?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- The Application is struck out.
- The Tribunal's suspension order dated January 3, 2024, is vacated.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.89(3)(b)
- 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.91(2)(b)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.95B
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.4(1)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016 reg.3(1)
- World Bank Procurement Regulations for Investment Project Financing (IPF) Borrowers November 2020 Annex III para.3.1(c)
Cases cited (7)
- Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 All ER 98
- Elite Chemicals Ltd v Uganda Coffee Development Authority (Applications No. 7 and 8 of 2021)
- Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (Application No. 33 of 2023)
- Far Gostar Bistoon v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 2 of 2023)
- Exposed Label Limited v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (Application No. 34 of 2023)
- Passionate Ventures SMC Uganda Ltd v Bulambuli District Local Government (Application No. 35 of 2023)
- Vital Capital Investments Limited and 2 Others v Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (Application No. 16 of 2023)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.