Wakilii

Sabastar General Trading Company Limited v Kampala Capital City Authority [2026] UGPPDPAAT 13

Tribunal · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out for lack of locus standi; 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 struck out the application on the ground that the applicant lacked locus standi. The applicant's bid validity expired on 25 March 2026 without extension. The application was filed on 26 March 2026, by which time the applicant had ceased to qualify as a bidder under section 115(1)(a) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. A bid whose validity has expired cannot be retrospectively extended to revive its validity. The Tribunal declined to consider the merits.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of locus standi; suspension order vacated

Facts

Kampala Capital City Authority initiated a procurement process for road construction under the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area Urban Development Program. Thirteen bidders submitted bids on 30 September 2025. The Respondent declared Wady El Nile Contracting and Real-Estate Investments Company as the best evaluated bidder on 27 February 2026 at a contract price of UGX 72,850,804,951. The Applicant's bid was disqualified at the detailed technical evaluation stage for insufficient method statement, inadequate personnel qualifications, limited specific project experience, and insufficient environmental and social safeguards experience. The Applicant lodged a complaint before the Accounting Officer on 11 March 2026, which was dismissed on 19 March 2026. The Applicant filed an application before the Tribunal on 26 March 2026. The bidding document required bids to remain valid until 25 March 2026. The Applicant's bid validity expired on that date without extension.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant had the requisite locus standi before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact in disqualifying the Applicant's bid without first seeking clarification?
  3. Whether the grounds relied upon for disqualification constituted material deviations within the meaning of the applicable procurement regulations?
  4. Whether the award of the contract to the best evaluated bidder contravened the principle of value for money under the PPDA Act?
  5. Whether any remedies were available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The suspension order dated March 27, 2026, is hereby vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Bid Validity — Effect of Expiry
A bidder whose bid validity has expired ceases to qualify as a bidder under section 115(1)(a) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and lacks locus standi to institute proceedings before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal.
Public Procurement — Bid Validity — Retrospective Extension — Impermissibility
A bid whose validity has expired cannot be retrospectively extended to revive its validity, whether by the affected bidder or the procuring and disposing entity.
Public Procurement — Bid Validity — Expiry as Matter of Law
The expiry of bid validity is a matter of law and upon such expiry the procurement process terminates in respect of the affected bidder. Any application founded on an expired bid is incompetent.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (8)

  • Uganda Women's Network & Uganda National NGO Forum v Financial Intelligence Authority & Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 23 of 2021)
  • Maleka Engineering and Construction Company Limited and Another v Kira Municipal Council (Application No. 30 of 2024)
  • Canaansites Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 36 of 2022)
  • China Railway No. 3 Engineering Company Limited v Kampala Capital City Authority (Application No. 46 of 2025)
  • Xinjiang Power Transmission and Transformation Limited Company and Beijing Shine Technology Company Limited Consortium v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 37 of 2025)
  • Uzuzi Meter Technologies Limited v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company (Application No. 10 of 2026)
  • Meals on Wheels Ltd in Joint Venture with Maze Establishments Ltd v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (Application No. 23 of 2025)
  • Meera Investment Limited v National Lotteries and Gaming Regulatory Board & Riverstone Africa Ltd/Grand Capital Reality (Application No. 44 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sabastar General Trading Company Limited v Kampala Capital City Authority 2026 UGPPDPAAT 13 (17 April 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.