Wakilii

Roko Construction Limited v Uganda Bureau of Statistics [2026] UGPPDPAAT 4

Tribunal · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision following rejection of bid at preliminary evaluation stage
Decision
Application dismissed; procurement process to proceed

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 dismissed the application. The Applicant's bid was properly rejected for submitting a bid security with a validity period 41 working days shorter than required. The omission of specific calendar dates for bid validity and bid security in the bidding documents was irregular but not fatal, as the validity periods were objectively calculable from the fixed submission deadline. The correction of arithmetic errors in the best evaluated bidder's financial proposal was lawful under the evaluation regulations. The Applicant was estopped from challenging the bidding documents after voluntarily participating in the procurement process without seeking timely clarification.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement process to proceed

Facts

Uganda Bureau of Statistics initiated procurement for construction of an office block. Seven bidders submitted bids on 12 December 2025. On 31 December 2025, CRJE (East Africa) Ltd was declared best evaluated bidder at UGX 65,375,272,268 VAT inclusive. Roko Construction Ltd's bid was rejected at preliminary evaluation for submitting a bid security valid until 26 May 2026, which was 41 working days shorter than the required 148 working days (120 days bid validity plus 28 days extension). The bidding documents specified 120 days bid validity and 28 days additional bid security validity but did not insert specific calendar dates. Roko challenged the rejection, alleging unauthorized alteration of standard bidding documents, unclear validity requirements, unlawful correction of arithmetic errors in the winning bid, and breach of the mandatory display period.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent unlawfully modified the Standard Bidding Document without the Authority's approval, thereby rendering the procurement process void ab initio.
  2. Whether Issue No. 1 is improperly before the Tribunal on the basis that the Applicant did not raise it before the Accounting Officer.
  3. Whether the Respondent unlawfully altered the Best Evaluated Bidder's financial proposal, resulting in a material discrepancy between the bid price announced at bid opening and the price stated in the Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder.
  4. Whether the Respondent inconsistently and unfairly applied the evaluation criteria, thereby deviating from the prescribed principles of evaluation.
  5. Whether the Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder was issued in breach of the mandatory display period.
  6. Whether the Respondent erred in eliminating the Applicant's bid on the ground that the bid security submitted had a validity period shorter than that required under ITB 1.3(c) and ITB 21.3 of the bidding documents.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Respondent at liberty to proceed with the procurement process to its logical conclusion.
  • Suspension order dated 29 January 2026 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Procurement Appeals — Scope of Tribunal Review — Full Merits Review
An application under section 115 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act empowers the Tribunal to conduct a full merits review of a procuring entity's decision, not limited to appellate scrutiny, and the Tribunal may examine both the legality of the procurement process and the factual basis for the exercise of discretion regardless of whether every issue was raised before the Accounting Officer, subject to procedural fairness.
Administrative Law — Procurement — Estoppel — Approbation and Reprobation
A bidder who voluntarily participates in a procurement process and submits a bid based on the solicitation documents is estopped from later challenging those documents on the basis of alleged unauthorized alteration, as the doctrine of approbation and reprobation prevents a party from both accepting and repudiating the same instrument.
Administrative Law — Procurement — Bidding Documents — Duty to Seek Clarification
Where a bidder considers bidding documents to be ambiguous or defective, the proper recourse is to seek clarification within the permitted period under the Instructions to Bidders or to file a timely complaint under section 106 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act; a bidder cannot knowingly participate in a procurement process, reserve an objection, and only raise it after the outcome is unfavorable.
Administrative Law — Procurement — Bid Validity and Bid Security — Calculation of Validity Periods
Where bidding documents stipulate a fixed submission deadline and specify the number of days for bid validity and bid security validity, the omission of specific calendar dates does not create ambiguity or render the procurement process invalid if the validity periods are objectively ascertainable by calculation from the known submission date, and all bidders are equally capable of performing that calculation.
Administrative Law — Procurement — Evaluation — Correction of Arithmetic Errors
An Evaluation Committee may lawfully correct arithmetic errors in a bid under Regulation 7(1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2023 and ITB 37.3(a) and (c), provided such corrections constitute non-material deviations that do not affect the scope, quality, or performance of the works, the bidder's ability to perform, or produce unacceptable outcomes; the corrected amount represents the true bid price and may form part of the contract price.
Administrative Law — Procurement — Bid Security — Validity Period as Condition of Responsiveness
Bid security validity is not a mere documentation formality but a condition of responsiveness expressly prescribed under the Instructions to Bidders; a bid security with a validity period shorter than required is a material defect that renders the bid non-responsive and is not curable by waiver, clarification, or mechanisms for rectifying non-material deviations, as it deprives the procuring entity of its right to encash and exposes the procurement to risk.
Administrative Law — Procurement — Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder — Typographical Errors
A typographical error in a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder that misstates the removal date for the mandatory display period but does not affect the substance of the award decision or prejudice bidders is curable and does not invalidate the procurement process, particularly where the notice was communicated to all bidders and the affected bidder was able to file an administrative review within the prescribed period.

Legislation cited (32)

Cases cited (13)

  • Twed Property Development Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 13 of 2025)
  • Arua Municipal Council v Arua United Transporters SACCO (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017)
  • Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Ed., Reissue, Vol. 16, para. 957
  • Evans v Bartlam [1937] AC 473
  • Kakooba Matooke Traders Co-operative Limited v Mbarara City Council and Another (Application No. 34 of 2025)
  • CRJE (East Africa) Limited v National Council for Higher Education (Application No. 27 of 2024)
  • JB United Civil Engineering & Building Contractors Ltd v Adjumani DLG (Application No. 07 of 2023)
  • Rexco Ltd v Katakwi DLG (Application No. 29 of 2023)
  • Dentons Advocates v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 39 of 2025)
  • China Railway No. 3 Engineering Co. Ltd v Kampala Capital City Authority (Application No. 46 of 2025)
  • Sheema United Drivers Co-operative Society Ltd v PPDA Authority (Application No. 1 of 2017)
  • Kasokoso Services Ltd v Jinja School of Nursing & Midwifery (Application No. 13 of 2021)
  • Seyani Brothers & Co. (U) Ltd v Enterprise Uganda (Application No. 19 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Roko Construction Limited v Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2026 UGPPDPAAT 4 (17 February 2026)
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.