Wakilii

Subamu Investment Limited v Iganga Municipal Council [2025] UGPPDPAAT 57

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 being filed outside the statutory limitation period

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 outside the statutory ten-working-day limitation period. The Accounting Officer issued a decision on September 12, 2025, rejecting the applicant's administrative review complaint. Rather than challenge this decision to the Tribunal within ten working days, the applicant attempted to file a second administrative review with the same Accounting Officer on September 23, 2025, which is legally impermissible. The application was eventually filed on November 10, 2025, forty working days after the statutory deadline expired on September 26, 2025. The Tribunal held that statutory timelines under the Public Procurement Act are mandatory and cannot be extended, and failure to comply deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction.

Outcome

Application struck out for being filed outside the statutory limitation period

Facts

Iganga Municipal Council initiated a procurement for revenue collection management using open domestic bidding. The bid deadline was July 25, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Only one bid was received from Manyanja Technical Co. Ltd. The applicant filed a complaint on July 29, 2025, alleging that Manyanja's director prevented it from submitting its bid on time and that Manyanja was ineligible. The respondent declared Manyanja the best evaluated bidder on August 4, 2025. The applicant filed Registry Application No. 24 of 2025 before the Tribunal, which set aside the contract award and directed the Accounting Officer to investigate and decide the complaint. An administrative review committee was constituted on September 3, 2025, and found no evidence that the applicant was denied access to submit its bid. On September 12, 2025, the Accounting Officer struck out the applicant's complaint, finding the bid was submitted 20 minutes late. The applicant wrote to the Accounting Officer on September 23, 2025, complaining about the decision, but received no response. The applicant filed the instant application on November 10, 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application was filed within the statutory timelines?
  2. Whether the Accounting Officer erred when she ignored the recommendations of the administrative review committee to have the impugned procurement retendered?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Statutory Limitation Periods — Mandatory Nature
The timelines set under the Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Act for filing applications for review before the Tribunal are mandatory and cannot be extended or varied, and failure to act within the prescribed period deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Second Review Impermissible
The law does not allow a bidder to lodge a second administrative review with the same Accounting Officer once that Accounting Officer has already issued a decision on the first administrative review complaint.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Limitation Period — Commencement
Where a bidder is aggrieved by an Accounting Officer's decision under section 106(7) of the Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Act, the ten-working-day time limit under section 115(2)(a) for filing an application to the Tribunal begins to run from the date the Accounting Officer's decision is received.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Effect of Non-Compliance — Loss of Jurisdiction
Once an Accounting Officer has made a decision on an administrative review complaint, the aggrieved bidder must bring all grievances to the Tribunal within the statutory limitation period, and failure to do so renders the application incompetent and deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction to hear the matter on its merits.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Act s.115(1)(a)
  • Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Act s.115(1)(b)
  • Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Act s.115(1)(c)
  • Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Act s.115(2)
  • Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Act s.115(2)(a)
  • Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Act s.106(7)
  • Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Act s.106(8)
  • Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Act s.106(9)

Cases cited (5)

  • Goldstar Insurance Co. Ltd v Uganda National Oil Company (Application No. 18 of 2025)
  • Kakooba Matooke Traders Co-operative Ltd v Mbarara City Council (Application No. 34 of 2025)
  • Technology Associates Ltd (in Consortium) v Post Bank Uganda Ltd (Application No. 6 of 2022)
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (High Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2024)
  • Sybl Ltd v National Information Technology Authority Uganda (Application No. 33 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Subamu Investment Limited v Iganga Municipal Council 2025 UGPPDPAAT 57 (25 November 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.