Wakilii

SR Afrochicks and Breeders Limited v Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries [2025] UGPPDPAAT 10

Tribunal · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Administrative review application challenging procurement award decision following unsuccessful bid
Decision
Application dismissed; procurement process may proceed to completion

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 dismissed the application challenging the award of a procurement contract for organic fertilizer. The Accounting Officer's administrative review decision was made outside the prescribed 10-day statutory timeline and was therefore invalid. However, the Applicant's bid was properly disqualified at the preliminary evaluation stage for failure to submit required documents including NSSF clearance certificate, audited accounts, and evidence of financial resources. The best evaluated bidder's bid satisfied all post-qualification criteria. The Applicant failed to prove conflict of interest allegations. The procurement process was conducted in accordance with applicable law and the bidding document.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement process may proceed to completion

Facts

Uganda Coffee Development Authority (later merged with the Ministry of Agriculture) initiated procurement for supply of 68,888 bags of organic fertilizer. Three bidders responded. The evaluation committee disqualified SR Afrochicks & Breeders Limited at the preliminary stage for failing to submit NSSF clearance certificate for September 2024, audited accounts for 2019-2023, and evidence of financial resources. Fertiplus Organic Ltd was selected as best evaluated bidder at UGX 5,717,704,000. SR Afrochicks filed administrative review complaint on February 11, 2025. The Accounting Officer dismissed the complaint on February 24, 2025 (outside the 10-day statutory deadline). SR Afrochicks then filed this application before the Tribunal on March 3, 2025, alleging unfair disqualification, improper evaluation, conflict of interest, and failure to test fertilizer samples before award.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's Accounting Officer made an administrative review decision within the prescribed timeline?
  2. Whether the Applicant's bid was unfairly disqualified by the Respondent's Evaluation Committee?
  3. Whether the Respondent evaluated the bid of the best evaluated bidder in accordance with the criteria specified in the bidding documents and procurement laws?
  4. Whether there was a conflict of interest between the Respondent and the agents of the Best Evaluated Bidder in the impugned procurement?
  5. Whether there are available remedies to the Parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Respondent at liberty to continue with the procurement process to its logical conclusion.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated March 4, 2025 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Administrative Review Timeline — Statutory Compliance
An Accounting Officer's decision on an administrative review complaint filed under Section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act must be made and communicated within 10 days from the date of filing. A decision made outside this prescribed statutory timeline is contrary to law, is no decision at all, and is inconsequential.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Tribunal Jurisdiction — Merits Review
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal is a merits review body whose decision involves consideration of whether, on the available facts, the decision made was correct. The Tribunal's role is to review the impugned decision and determine whether applicable rules were complied with, whether the bidding document was complied with, whether the facts relied upon were correct, and whether there is manifest error. The Tribunal shall not overturn a decision merely because it has formed an opinion different from that held by the procuring entity.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Bid Evaluation — Material Deviations
Failure to submit required eligibility documents such as audited books of accounts and evidence of financial resources constitutes a material deviation that cannot be cured by request for clarification or submission of documents under Regulation 6(2) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2023, where doing so would substantially alter crucial factors in the evaluation of a bid.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Post-Qualification — Single Envelope Method
In a single envelope method where the technical compliance evaluation method is used, all stages of evaluation are to be conducted together. Where post-qualification parameters are also applied at the administrative compliance stage of evaluation, this does not mean that post-qualification evaluation was not conducted on the bid.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Conflict of Interest — Evidentiary Burden
An applicant alleging conflict of interest in a procurement process must satisfy the evidentiary burden and standard of proof for such a claim. Mere allegations without sufficient documentary or testimonial evidence will not establish conflict of interest.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (7)

  • Jilk Construction Company Limited v Kira Municipal Council (Application No. 31 of 2024)
  • Raxio Data Centre SMC Ltd v Bank of Uganda (Application No. 21 of 2024)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority v Basaar Arua Bus Operators Cooperative Society Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2016)
  • Doshnut Uganda Limited v Ministry of Water and Environment (Application No. 47 of 2024)
  • Egis Road Operations SA v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority and Others (Application No. 11 of 2020)
  • GAT Consult Ltd v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Application No. 30 of 2021)
  • MBJ Technologies Limited v Mbarara City Council (Application No. 37 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

SR Afrochicks and Breeders Limited v Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries 2025 UGPPDPAAT 10 (4 March 2025)
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.