Wakilii

Sajo General Stores Limited v Soroti District Local Government (Application 6 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGPPDPAAT 8 · 2024 Application Dismissed 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 dismissed; procurement decision upheld

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 was made outside the statutory 10-day timeframe and was of no legal consequence. However, the Tribunal retained jurisdiction to review the original complaint. On the merits, the Tribunal found that the Applicant's bid was rightfully rejected for failing to provide documentation authorising the Respondent to seek references from the Applicant's bankers, a requirement clearly stated in the bidding document. This omission constituted a material deviation that could not be cured through clarification. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement decision upheld

Facts

Soroti District Local Government tendered for completion of a maternity ward under procurement reference SORO553/WORKS/2023-2024/00004. Two bidders submitted bids: Sajo General Stores Limited (UGX 152,167,254) and Japemo Holdings (U) Ltd (UGX 192,051,490). On December 21, 2023, the Respondent issued a Best Evaluated Bidder Notice naming Japemo Holdings as the successful bidder. Sajo General Stores filed a complaint with the Accounting Officer on January 5, 2024, which was dismissed on January 17, 2024. The Applicant then filed this application with the Tribunal on January 25, 2024. The Applicant's bid had been rejected for failing to attach authority to seek reference from the bidder's bankers, as required by the bidding document. The Applicant argued this requirement was not in the solicitation document and was introduced during evaluation to favour competitors.

Issues

  1. Whether the Accounting Officer of the Respondent erred in law when he did not make and communicate the administrative review decision in the impugned procurement within the statutory timeframe?
  2. Whether the Respondent was justified in disqualifying the applicant's bid?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated January 25, 2024, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Statutory Timelines — Mandatory Nature
An Accounting Officer must make and communicate an administrative review decision within 10 days of receiving a complaint under section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 and regulation 8 of the Administrative Review Regulations 2023. These timelines are mandatory and couched in mandatory terms. There is no enabling provision within the Act that accords the Accounting Officer power to enlarge or extend time within which to make and communicate a decision. A decision made outside the statutory timeframe is of no legal consequence.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Tribunal Jurisdiction — Late Administrative Review Decision
Where an Accounting Officer fails or omits to make and communicate an administrative review decision within the statutory timeframe, and an applicant consequently files an application before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is seized with jurisdiction to review the complaint originally filed before the Accounting Officer if the application is competent.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Bid Evaluation — Material Deviation
Where a bidding document requires bidders to provide documentation authorising the procuring entity to seek references from the bidder's bankers, failure to provide such documentation constitutes a material deviation. Information from a bidder's bankers forms a crucial deciding factor in the evaluation of bids as it facilitates determination of whether the bidder has the financial capacity and resources to effectively execute the procurement. When omitted, it has the propensity to limit substantially the performance of the works and affects the ability of the bidder to perform the proposed contract.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Clarification — Limits on Discretion
Although a procuring entity has discretion under section 73 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 and regulation 6 of the Evaluation Regulations 2023 to request clarification of information or submission of documentation from a bidder, such discretion is not carte blanche. A request for clarification or documentation that, if complied with, would substantially alter anything that forms a deciding factor in the evaluation of a bid is expressly prohibited under regulations 6(3)(b) and 6(4)(b) of the Evaluation Regulations 2023. Clarification is not meant to introduce new information or documents to cure a material deviation in a bid.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (6)

  • APA Insurance Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 02 of 2022)
  • Eclipse Edisoil Juc Ltd v Napak District Local Government (Application No. 33 of 2023)
  • JV AGT S.P.A & Zhucheng Dingcheng Machinery Co. Ltd v Private Sector Foundation Uganda (Application No. 29 of 2022)
  • Gold Star Insurance Company Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 4 of 2024)
  • Exposed Label Limited v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (Application No. 34 of 2023)
  • Canaansites Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 36 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sajo General Stores Limited v Soroti District Local Government (Application 6 of 2024) 2024 UGPPDPAAT 8 (19 February 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.