Wakilii

Raxio Data Centre SMC Limited v Bank of Uganda (Application 21 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGPPDPAAT 25 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision following dismissal of administrative review complaint by Accounting Officer
Decision
Application struck out for being filed out of time; suspension order vacated

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 held that it had jurisdiction to hear the application because the procurement of data centre services was ancillary to Bank of Uganda's core functions under s.4 of the Bank of Uganda Act, and therefore subject to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003. However, the application was struck out as incompetent because it was filed out of time. The Accounting Officer's decision was made beyond the statutory 10-day period, rendering it of no legal consequence. Time for filing with the Tribunal commenced when the statutory period expired and elapsed before the application was lodged.

Outcome

Application struck out for being filed out of time; suspension order vacated

Facts

Bank of Uganda initiated a tender for provision of business resumption data centre relocation services using open international bidding. Raxio Data Centre SMC Ltd submitted a bid for Lot 2 (lease/co-location option). Following technical evaluation, Raxio's bid was disqualified for scoring 78.125 points below the pass mark of 80 points. Raxio filed an administrative review complaint with the Accounting Officer on March 20, 2024 (amended March 22, 2024). The Accounting Officer dismissed the complaint on April 11, 2024, on grounds of non-payment of administrative review fees and late filing. Raxio filed an application with the Tribunal on April 12, 2024. The Respondent raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and competence of the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the Application?
  2. Whether the Application before the Tribunal is competent?
  3. Whether the Respondent erred in failing to render a decision to the administrative review complaint within the statutory timeline?
  4. Whether it was erroneous for the Respondent to dismiss the Applicant's application on account of failure to pay administrative review fees?
  5. Whether the procurement was in violation of the obligation of transparency and fairness as prescribed by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act?
  6. Whether the Respondent erred by not suspending the procurement after an administrative review complaint had been lodged?
  7. Whether the Respondent erred in its technical evaluation of the Applicant's bid?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated April 12, 2024, is vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Jurisdiction of PPDA Tribunal — Bank of Uganda — Ancillary Functions
Where a procurement by Bank of Uganda relates to services ancillary to its core functions specified in s.4 of the Bank of Uganda Act rather than the core functions themselves, Bank of Uganda is a procuring and disposing entity for purposes of that procurement and the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 applies, vesting jurisdiction in the PPDA Tribunal.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Statutory Timelines — Accounting Officer's Decision
An Accounting Officer is obligated under s.89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 to make and communicate a decision on an administrative review complaint within 10 days of receipt. A decision made beyond this statutory period is made out of time, in breach of the law, and is of no legal consequence.
Public Procurement — Inconsistency Between Manual and Statute — Supremacy of Statute
Where provisions of the Bank of Uganda Procurement and Disposal of Assets Manual 2017 are inconsistent with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003, the Manual provisions are null and void to the extent of the inconsistency. The Manual must be modified to conform with the Act.
Public Procurement — Appeals to Tribunal — Time Limits — Competence of Application
Where no administrative review decision has been made by the Accounting Officer within the statutory 10-day period, time for filing an application with the PPDA Tribunal commences on the day following expiry of the statutory period and runs for 10 days. An application filed after this period is incompetent and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain it due to lapse of time.
Statutory Time Limits — Strict Compliance — No Power to Extend
Time limits set by statute are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities and must be strictly complied with. The Tribunal has no residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge or extend a period of time laid down by statute. Once a party fails to move within the time set by law, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is extinguished.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (13)

  • Bank of Uganda v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2020)
  • G.E Solutions v Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (Application No. 3 of 2024)
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (Application No. 33 of 2023)
  • Multiplex Limited v Masaka City Council (Application No. 15 of 2024)
  • Galleria in Africa Ltd v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2017)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
  • APA Insurance Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 02 of 2022)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Sam K. Njuba and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 5 of 2007)
  • JV AGT S.P.A & Zhucheng Dingcheng Machinery Co. Ltd v Private Sector Foundation Uganda (Application No. 29 of 2022)
  • Applications No. 1 and 4 of 2023
  • No. 27 and 29 of 2022
  • No. 17 of 2021

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Raxio Data Centre SMC Limited v Bank of Uganda (Application 21 of 2024) 2024 UGPPDPAAT 25 (6 April 2024)
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.