Wakilii

Samanga Solutions Limited v Uganda Wild Life (Application No 14 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 13 · 2022 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision following unsuccessful bid
Decision
Application struck out for being filed out of time

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 for lack of jurisdiction. The Accounting Officer's decision was communicated out of time and was therefore null and void. The applicant should have filed with the Tribunal within ten calendar days from the date the Accounting Officer should have communicated his decision, but filed seven days late. Time limits in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are mandatory and non-compliance is fatal.

Outcome

Application struck out for being filed out of time

Facts

Uganda Wildlife Authority initiated a procurement for supply of 250 communication equipment under open domestic bidding. Seven bidders submitted bids. Edd-Gadgets Technical Services Ltd was declared the best evaluated bidder at UGX 1,343,365,100. Samanga Solutions Limited, ranked second at UGX 1,496,464,200, challenged the evaluation on the ground that the best evaluated bidder lacked the required manufacturer's authorisation. The applicant applied for administrative review to the Accounting Officer on 22 April 2022. The Accounting Officer's decision was dated 5 May 2022 but communicated to the applicant on 12 May 2022, dismissing the application. The applicant then filed with the Tribunal on 20 May 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the Accounting Officer's decision was made and communicated within the time stipulated in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act.
  2. Whether the application to the Tribunal was made within the time stipulated in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act.
  3. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the application.

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated 23 May 2022 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Time Limits — Accounting Officer's Decision
Under section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act as amended, an Accounting Officer must make and communicate a decision on an administrative review application within ten days of receipt of the complaint. A decision communicated outside this period is a blatant breach of the law and is null and void.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Time Limits — Application to Tribunal
Where an Accounting Officer does not make a decision within the specified period under section 89(8) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, a bidder may apply to the Tribunal within ten calendar days from the date of expiry of the period within which the Accounting Officer should have communicated the decision. The ten days are calendar days, not working days.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Mandatory Provisions — Non-Compliance
The provisions of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are mandatory and not directory. Non-compliance with statutory time limits makes the proceedings fatal. The Act cannot regulate public procurement practices unless its provisions are adhered to strictly to the letter.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Statutory Time Limits
A tribunal has no residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge a period laid down by statute. Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which requires substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, is subject to the law and is no license for ignoring existing statutory provisions.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • K-Solutions Limited v Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (Application No. 16 of 2021)
  • Super Taste Ltd v Bank of Uganda (Application No. 33 of 2021)
  • JV KADAC-GLOBETEC v Uganda Prison Services (Application No. 04 of 2022)
  • Apa Insurance Uganda Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 2 of 2022)
  • Galleria in Africa Ltd v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Civil Appeal of 2017)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Kasirye, Byaruhanga and Co Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (SCCA No. 2 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Samanga Solutions Limited v Uganda Wild Life (Application No 14 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 13 (13 June 2022)
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.