Wakilii

Sanlam General Insurance Uganda Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No 29 of 2021)

Tribunal · [2021] UGPPDPAAT 6 · 2021 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision following administrative review by Accounting Officer
Decision
Application struck out as incompetent 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 as incompetent for being filed out of time. The Accounting Officer failed to make and communicate a decision within the statutory ten-day period prescribed by section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The applicant should have filed with the Tribunal within ten days from the expiry of that period but filed eighteen days late. Statutory time limits are mandatory and the Tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction to extend time.

Outcome

Application struck out as incompetent for being filed out of time

Facts

On 17 June 2021, Uganda National Roads Authority invited bids for group personal accident insurance for employees. Eight bidders submitted bids, opened on 16 August 2021. On 6 September 2021, the evaluation committee informed Britam Insurance Uganda Limited of an arithmetic correction to its bid price and copied all bidders. The applicant objected to the correction. On 28 September 2021, Britam was named best-evaluated bidder; the applicant's bid was rejected for submitting a bid security with incorrect ITB sub-clause references. The applicant applied for administrative review on 12 October 2021. The Accounting Officer dismissed the complaint in a decision dated 28 October 2021, allegedly received by the applicant on 5 November 2021. The applicant filed with the Tribunal on 19 November 2021.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a competent application before the Tribunal
  2. Whether the errors in the Applicant's bid security were material deviations
  3. Whether the Respondent wrongly corrected the bid of Britam Insurance Company Limited
  4. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated 22 November 2021 vacated.
  • Respondent may continue with the procurement process to its logical conclusion.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Statutory Time Limits — Mandatory Nature
Time limits set by statutes are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities and must be strictly complied with.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Tribunal Jurisdiction — Effect of Late Filing
Once a party fails to move within the time set by law, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is extinguished as far as the matter is concerned.
Statutory Interpretation — Extension of Time — Absence of Statutory Power
A court or tribunal has no residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge a period of time laid down by statute where there is no enabling statutory provision or rule.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Accounting Officer's Decision — Effect of Failure to Decide Within Statutory Period
Where an Accounting Officer fails to make and communicate a decision within the ten-day period prescribed by section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, such failure is a blatant breach of the law and the decision made thereafter is no decision at all.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Application to Tribunal — Time for Filing After Accounting Officer's Failure
Where an Accounting Officer does not make and communicate a decision within the statutory ten-day period, an application to the Tribunal must be made within ten days from the date of expiry of that period, not from the date of actual receipt of a belated decision.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Galleria in Africa Ltd v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2017)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Sam K. Njuba & Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 5 of 2007)
  • Empire Tools v PPDA (Application No. 8 of 2019)
  • Kiyindi Electrical and Engineering Ltd v PPDA (Misc Application No. 1 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sanlam General Insurance Uganda Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No 29 of 2021) 2021 UGPPDPAAT 6 (10 December 2021)
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.