Wakilii

Ssaalongo Matovu v Uganda National Roads Authority and Another [2025] UGPPDPAAT 5

Tribunal · 2025 Application Struck Out 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 struck out for lack of locus standi

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 applicant, who described himself as a concerned citizen and whistleblower, lacked locus standi to challenge a procurement decision under section 115(1)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The applicant failed to demonstrate that any personal legal right had been adversely affected by the accounting officer's decision. He was neither a bidder nor a person with vested rights in the procurement. The application was struck out as incompetent without consideration of the merits.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of locus standi

Facts

The Government of Uganda, through the Uganda National Roads Authority, initiated a procurement for upgrading national roads using financing from the Islamic Development Bank. Nine bids were received in August 2023. After evaluation and bank approval, the contract was awarded to Arab Contractors (Osman Ahmed Osman and Co) on July 5, 2024. The applicant, describing himself as a concerned citizen, wrote letters to various authorities in September and October 2024 alleging irregularities in the evaluation process. He filed an application for review with the Tribunal on January 9, 2025, claiming his rights were adversely affected by anomalies in the procurement. The respondent objected on grounds that the applicant lacked locus standi and that the application was time-barred.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the Application is time-barred?
  3. Whether there were discrepancies in the engineer's estimates?
  4. Whether there was a contradiction in the awarded price?
  5. Whether the bids were evaluated according to the evaluation criteria?
  6. Whether the best-evaluated bid was responsive to the evaluation criteria?
  7. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The suspension order dated January 10, 2025, is vacated.
  • Each party should bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Locus Standi — Public Procurement Review — Section 115(1)(b) of Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act
Under section 115(1)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act Cap 205, a person whose rights are adversely affected by a decision of an accounting officer may apply to the Tribunal for review. An applicant must demonstrate that his or her legal rights under the Constitution, statute, common law, customary law or equity have been adversely affected by the accounting officer's decision. It is not sufficient to assert the existence of a right; the facts in the pleadings must bear out the extent of such right and that its breach would give rise to relief.
Administrative Law — Locus Standi — Concerned Citizens and Whistleblowers — Distinction from Persons with Adversely Affected Rights
A person who describes himself as a concerned citizen or whistleblower does not thereby acquire locus standi to challenge a procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal. The constitutional right to participate in government affairs under Article 38 of the Constitution does not confer enforceable rights in a specific procurement process. The Tribunal is not a law enforcement or investigation agency and does not clothe anti-corruption activists with standing for purposes of procurement review applications.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement Review — Proper Respondent — Effect of Statutory Repeal and Transfer of Functions
Where the Uganda National Roads Authority Act Cap 214 has been repealed and the Authority dissolved, with all assets, rights and obligations vested in the Government of Uganda under the ministry responsible for roads, the Ministry of Works and Transport becomes the proper procuring and disposing entity and respondent in procurement review proceedings. Under section 7(5) of the Uganda National Roads Authority Act (Repeal) Act 2024, proceedings commenced by or against the Uganda National Roads Authority may be continued by or against the Attorney General.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (6)

  • Njau & Others v City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] 1 EA 397
  • Trio Consultants Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 33 of 2024)
  • Tumwebaze Stephen Kiba v Mbarara City & 2 Others (Application No. 21 of 2022)
  • Obon Infrastructure Development JV v Mbarara City & Others (Application No. 20 of 2021)
  • Old Kampala Students Association v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority & Old Kampala Senior Secondary School (Application No. 7 of 2017)
  • Tumwebaze Stephen Kiba v Mbarara City & UB Consulting Engineers Ltd in JV with Professional Engineering Consultants Ltd (Application No. 21 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssaalongo Matovu v Uganda National Roads Authority and Another 2025 UGPPDPAAT 5 (27 January 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.