Wakilii

Rexco Limited v Budaka District Local Government (Application 10 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGPPDPAAT 13 · 2024 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for 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 Accounting Officer's administrative review decision was made outside the statutory ten-day timeline and was therefore a nullity. The applicant had ten days from the expiry of that period to file with the Tribunal, which expired on February 22, 2024. The application filed on February 23, 2024 was one day out of time. The procurement statute's timelines are mandatory and the Tribunal has no power to extend time. Once the statutory deadline passes, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is extinguished.

Outcome

Application struck out as time-barred

Facts

Budaka District Local Government initiated a procurement for construction of a ward at Budaka Health Centre IV. Three bidders submitted bids. Midor and Siblings Investment Limited was awarded the contract at UGX 158,290,923 VAT exclusive. Rexco Limited was the second-best evaluated bidder at UGX 158,765,088. The Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder was displayed on January 18, 2024 with removal date February 1, 2024. Rexco filed an administrative review complaint with the Accounting Officer on February 1, 2024, complaining about withholding of information, inconsistencies in the notice, and irregular arithmetic corrections. The Accounting Officer requested payment of administrative review fees on February 7, 2024 (delivered February 9). Rexco paid on February 10, 2024. The Accounting Officer rejected the complaint on February 13, 2024. Rexco filed the application with the Tribunal on February 23, 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application is competent?
  2. Whether Midor and Siblings Investment Limited was lawfully declared as the Best Evaluated Bidder?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated February 23, 2024 is vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Statutory Timelines — Competence of Application
An application to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal must be filed within the statutory timelines prescribed by sections 89(8) and 91(2)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The Tribunal has no power to extend or enlarge time. Once the statutory deadline passes, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is extinguished.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Statutory Timelines for Accounting Officer
Under section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, an Accounting Officer must make and communicate a decision on an administrative review complaint within ten days from receipt of the complaint. A decision made outside this statutory timeline is a nullity.
Public Procurement — Computation of Time — Excluded Days
Where a statutory deadline falls on a Sunday, that day is an excluded day under section 34(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act and the deadline extends to the next working day.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review Fees — Effect of Late Payment on Timelines
The fact that an applicant pays administrative review fees belatedly has no effect on the statutory timelines within which the Accounting Officer must make and communicate a decision under section 89 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Pynet Technologies SMC Ltd v Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (Application No. 1 and 2 of 2024)
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (Application No. 33 of 2023)
  • G.E Solutions v Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (Application No. 3 of 2024)
  • Exposed Label Limited v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (Application No. 34 of 2023)
  • Vital Capital Investments Limited and 2 Others v Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (Application No. 16 of 2023)
  • Sanlam General Insurance v UNRA (Application No. 29 of 2021)
  • Mugabi David v Sembabule District Local Government (Application No. 24 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rexco Limited v Budaka District Local Government (Application 10 of 2024) 2024 UGPPDPAAT 13 (13 March 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.