Wakilii

Southern Range Nyanza Limited v Uganda Wildlife Authority [2026] UGPPDPAAT 8

Tribunal · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision declaring best evaluated bidder
Decision
Best Evaluated Bidder Notice set aside. Matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation within 10 working days.

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 PPDA Guidelines are advisory and lack the force of law unless incorporated into bidding documents or issued as statutory instruments. Where a bidding document defines a reservation scheme as applying to local providers without requiring manufacturing facilities, the Tribunal cannot import additional criteria from guidelines not expressly adopted. The evaluation committee's failure to assess compliance with the reservation scheme requirement in the bidding document rendered the evaluation incomplete. The Best Evaluated Bidder Notice was set aside and the matter remitted for re-evaluation.

Outcome

Best Evaluated Bidder Notice set aside. Matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation within 10 working days.

Facts

Uganda Wildlife Authority initiated a procurement for digital camouflage field uniforms under open domestic bidding. The bidding document provided that a reservation scheme applied to local providers (residents and East African Community). Ten bidders submitted bids. Homik Petroleum & Facilities Engineering Ltd was declared best evaluated bidder at UGX 1,406,324,000. Southern Range Nyanza Limited challenged the award, arguing that the reservation scheme required the winning bidder to have vertically integrated manufacturing facilities in Uganda under PPDA Guideline 12/2024. The Accounting Officer dismissed the complaint, finding that the reservation applied to local and EAC providers, not manufacturing status, and that the evaluation was conducted strictly according to the bidding document criteria. Southern Range Nyanza Limited applied to the Tribunal for review.

Issues

  1. Whether the reservation scheme in the bidding documents was subject to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Guidelines on Reservation Schemes to Promote the Participation of Local Providers in Public Procurement (Guideline 12/2024)?
  2. Whether the Respondent properly evaluated the criteria relating to the reservation scheme?
  3. Whether the Respondent relied on extraneous criteria in the evaluation of the bids?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application allowed in part.
  • Best Evaluated Bidder Notice dated 9th February 2026 set aside.
  • Respondent ordered to re-evaluate the bids in a manner not inconsistent with this decision, the bidding document, and the law.
  • Re-evaluation to be conducted within 10 working days from the date of this decision.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated 12th March 2026 vacated.
  • Respondent to refund the administrative review fees paid by the Applicant.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Guidelines — Legal Status and Enforceability
Guidelines issued by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority are advisory and do not have the force of law unless incorporated into bidding documents or issued as statutory instruments under the Interpretation Act.
Public Procurement — Reservation Schemes — Incorporation into Bidding Documents
Where a bidding document defines a reservation scheme as applying to local providers without incorporating additional requirements from PPDA guidelines, a tribunal cannot import criteria not expressly adopted in the bidding document.
Public Procurement — Evaluation — Prohibition on Extraneous Criteria
Section 76(3) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and regulation 5 of the Evaluation Regulations prohibit the application of criteria other than those specified in the bidding documents.
Public Procurement — Evaluation — Duty to Assess All Mandatory Requirements
An evaluation committee that fails to evaluate a mandatory requirement in the bidding document conducts an incomplete and improper evaluation.
Public Procurement — Challenge to Bidding Documents — Proper Procedure
Where a bidder considers a provision of the bidding document to be inconsistent with applicable laws or guidelines, the proper course is to lodge a complaint with the Accounting Officer within the statutory timelines. A tribunal is constrained to impugn a bidding document issued and used by all bidders without objection.
Statutory Instruments — Requirements for Mandatory Reservation Schemes
For purposes of section 53(2) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, the relevant authority must issue a statutory instrument to specify the public procurement contracts subject to a reservation scheme and designate the particular sectors and geographical areas eligible to participate.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Southern Range Nyanza Limited v Uganda Wildlife Authority 2026 UGPPDPAAT 8 (30 March 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.