Wakilii

Super Taste Limited v Bank of Uganda (Application No 33 of 2021)

Tribunal · [2021] UGPPDPAAT 9 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal challenging disqualification from a tender process
Decision
Application struck out as time-barred

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 application was filed out of time. Where an Accounting Officer fails to make and communicate a decision within ten days as required by section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, an applicant must lodge an appeal to the Tribunal within ten calendar days from the date of expiry of that period under section 91I(2)(b). The reference to days in these provisions means calendar days, not working days. The application was struck out as time-barred.

Outcome

Application struck out as time-barred

Facts

Bank of Uganda invited bids for catering services at its headquarters and branches. Super Taste Limited submitted a bid for Lot 1 (headquarters) but was disqualified at the technical evaluation stage after a site visit found its premises unsuitable: the kitchen was smaller than the required 40 square metres, it lacked required equipment (fridge, electric chaffing dishes or Baine Marie), and had hygiene issues with storage and changing facilities sharing the same room. The Applicant applied for administrative review on 12 November 2021. The Accounting Officer communicated a decision on 2 December 2021, ten days after the statutory deadline of 22 November 2021. The Applicant filed an application to the Tribunal on 9 December 2021.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application is time barred.
  2. Whether the Respondent unfairly disqualified the Applicant's bid.
  3. Whether the evaluation criteria were flouted.
  4. Whether the Applicant was disqualified on grounds where clarification would have been sought.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated 9th December 2021 is vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Time Limits for Appeals — Computation of Time
Where an Accounting Officer fails to make and communicate a decision within ten days as required by section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, an applicant must lodge an appeal to the Tribunal within ten calendar days from the date of expiry of that period under section 91I(2)(b), not ten working days.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Mandatory Compliance with Statutory Time Limits
Provisions of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act regulating procurement practices must be adhered to strictly and are mandatory, not directory. Non-compliance with mandatory time limits makes proceedings fatal.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Statutory Time Limits — Effect of Non-Compliance
Time limits set by statutes are matters of substantive law and must be strictly complied with. 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.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Extension of Time — No Inherent Power
A tribunal has no residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge a period of time laid down by statute where there is no enabling provision within the statute that accords such power.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Interpretation of Statutory Provisions — Bidding Documents Cannot Override Statute
The definition of working days in a bidding document cannot override express provisions of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. Definitions in bidding documents apply to timelines for the bidding process but not to administrative review timelines stipulated under the Act.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Super Taste Limited v Bank of Uganda (Application No 33 of 2021) 2021 UGPPDPAAT 9 (21 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.