Wakilii

Rural Digital Media Ltd v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority [2025] UGPPDPAAT 42

Tribunal · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision following administrative review complaint to Accounting Officer
Decision
Application partly allowed; Accounting Officer's decision set aside as nullity; Applicant's bid disqualification upheld; procurement process may continue

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 the Accounting Officer's administrative review decision communicated outside the statutory 10-day period was a nullity. The Evaluation Committee erred by introducing an extra criterion requiring the NSSF clearance to indicate employment of 100 workers, which was not in the bidding document. However, the Applicant's bid was properly disqualified because it failed to prove management of at least 100 workers for the past 3 years as required. The Tribunal declined to approve the Applicant's attempted withdrawal, finding prima facie illegality that could not be ignored. The best evaluated bidder notice remained valid.

Outcome

Application partly allowed; Accounting Officer's decision set aside as nullity; Applicant's bid disqualification upheld; procurement process may continue

Facts

Uganda Civil Aviation Authority initiated procurement for provision and management of casual workers at Entebbe International Airport for 4 years. Three bidders submitted bids on June 13, 2025. On August 14, 2025, Ark Group Services Limited was declared best evaluated bidder. Rural Digital Media Ltd was disqualified at preliminary evaluation for failure to provide proof of managing 100 workers over the past three years. The Applicant filed an administrative review complaint on August 18, 2025. The Accounting Officer's decision dated August 28, 2025 was communicated on September 3, 2025, finding merit in some grounds and ordering re-evaluation. The Applicant then filed this application to the Tribunal on September 5, 2025. During the hearing on September 18, 2025, the Applicant attempted to withdraw the application, but the Tribunal declined to approve the withdrawal.

Issues

  1. Whether the administrative review decision of the Respondent's Accounting Officer was communicated out of time and therefore a nullity?
  2. Whether the criterion for proof of management of at least 100 workers for the past 3 years either directly or as third-party providers was unlawful?
  3. Whether the Evaluation Committee misinterpreted eligibility criterion 3.2(r) by demanding unspecified and undisclosed additional evidence?
  4. Whether the Applicant's bid was responsive to the criterion of proof of management of at least 100 workers for the past 3 years either directly or as third-party providers?
  5. Whether Ark Group Services Limited can still be referred to as the best evaluated bidder?
  6. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application allowed in part.
  • Decision of the Respondent's Accounting Officer dated August 28, 2025 and communicated on September 3, 2025 declared a nullity and set aside.
  • Respondent may continue with the procurement process to its logical conclusion.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated September 5, 2025 vacated.
  • Respondent shall refund the Applicant's administrative review fees.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Statutory Timelines — Nullity
Where an Accounting Officer makes an administrative review decision within the statutory 10-day period but communicates it to the complainant after the deadline has expired, the decision fails to comply with section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and is a nullity with no legal effect.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Tribunal Jurisdiction — Late Administrative Review Decision
Under section 106(8) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, where an Accounting Officer does not make and communicate a decision within ten days, the bidder is permitted to make an application to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal retains jurisdiction to hear the application under section 115(1)(a) of the Act.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Withdrawal of Applications — Tribunal Discretion
A tribunal has discretion whether to approve a withdrawal of an application and does not merely rubber stamp a withdrawal. The word 'approve' means to officially agree to or accept as satisfactory, requiring the tribunal to be satisfied with the matter presented.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Illegality — Duty of Court or Tribunal
A court or tribunal cannot ignore an illegality once brought to its attention. Public procurement involves public affairs and public funds, and care must be taken to ensure all processes are in strict compliance with the law.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Evaluation Criteria — Amendment Prohibited
Section 76(3) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and regulation 5 of the Evaluation Regulations prohibit an Evaluation Committee from making amendments to evaluation criteria stated in the bidding document or using any criteria other than those specified in the bidding document.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Bidding Documents — Ambiguity — Duty to Seek Clarification
Where a bidder has an opportunity to request clarification of a bidding criterion under the regulations and fails to do so, the bidder is deemed to have been satisfied that it could reasonably respond to the criterion. It is disingenuous for a bidder who could have sought clarification or challenged the bidding document but proceeded to submit a bid to later complain about that same document after contract award.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Fishing Expeditions
It is not lawful to make a generalised 'fishing expedition' challenge to a contract award and demand that the Accounting Officer evaluate or review another person's bid in order to search and discover any possible irregularities. A complaint must specify the error made and the provision breached.

Legislation cited (21)

Cases cited (10)

  • Kamba Saleh v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 38 of 2012)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor [1982] HCB 11
  • Mugisa Richard v Hoima District Local Government (Application No. 10 of 2022)
  • Kansiime David vs Hoima District Local Government
  • Goldstar Insurance Company Limited v Uganda National Oil Company (Application No. 18 of 2025)
  • BU-Lepu Foundation Ltd v Lira City Council (Application No. 14 of 2025)
  • Jilk Construction Company Limited v Kira Municipal Council (Application No. 31 of 2024)
  • Abasamia Hwolerane Association Ltd v Jinja City Council (Application No. 12 of 2021)
  • Globe World Engineering (U) Ltd v Mbale City Council (Application No. 21 of 2021)
  • K-Solutions Ltd v Ministry of Water and Environment (Application No. 8 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rural Digital Media Ltd v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority 2025 UGPPDPAAT 42 (22 September 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.