Wakilii

Tech Planet Development Centre v Fort Portal Regional Referral Hospital [2025] UGPPDPAAT 55

Tribunal · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review challenging non-renewal of framework contract and subsequent procurement process
Decision
Application struck out for non-compliance with statutory timelines

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 mandatory ten-working-day statutory timeline. The applicant, as a person adversely affected by the respondent's decision not to renew its contract, ought to have filed directly with the Tribunal within ten working days from 27 September 2025 when it became aware of the non-renewal. The application filed on 31 October 2025, thirty-four days later, was time-barred. The Tribunal held that statutory timelines under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are mandatory and non-extendable, and failure to comply deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction.

Outcome

Application struck out for non-compliance with statutory timelines

Facts

Tech Planet Development Centre held a three-year framework contract with Fort Portal Regional Referral Hospital for cleaning services valued at UGX 51,547,512 per annum, expiring 29 September 2025. On 10 September 2025, the applicant requested renewal for a further three years. The applicant received no response. On 26–29 September 2025, staff from another provider, Ever Rosy Cleaning and Fumigation Services (also referred to as Eva Rose Investment Limited), appeared on hospital premises claiming to have been awarded the contract and recruiting the applicant's employees. The applicant filed an administrative review request with the Accounting Officer on 8 October 2025, which was dismissed on 10 October 2025 on grounds that the applicant was not a participating bidder. The respondent confirmed by letter dated 17 October 2025 that the contract would not be renewed and that a new procurement process had commenced. The applicant filed the present application before the Tribunal on 31 October 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application was filed within the statutory timelines prescribed by law?
  2. Whether the Respondent acted in error, in law or in fact, by refusing to renew the framework contract for compound and staff quarters cleaning services under Procurement Reference FP/SUPLS/2021-2022/00143?
  3. Whether the Respondent acted in error, in law or in fact, by awarding the cleaning contract to Eva Rose Cleaning and Fumigation Services (also referred to as Eva Rose Investment Limited)?
  4. What remedies, if any, 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 — Standing to Apply for Administrative Review — Non-Bidders
A person whose rights are adversely affected by a decision of an Accounting Officer may apply directly to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal for administrative review under section 115(1)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act Cap 205, without being a bidder and without having first sought review from the Accounting Officer.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Scope of Procurement Process — Contract Management
The statutory definition of 'procurement process' under section 2 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act encompasses all successive stages of the procurement cycle, including contract management. Decisions such as extending or not renewing a procurement contract fall within the scope of a procurement process and are reviewable by the Tribunal.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Statutory Timelines — Mandatory Nature
The timelines established under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act Cap 205 for filing applications for administrative review are mandatory and not subject to extension or variation. Failure to act within the prescribed period deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Timelines for Non-Bidders — Commencement of Time
Where an applicant is a person adversely affected by a decision of an Accounting Officer but is not a bidder, the ten-working-day period for filing an application directly with the Tribunal commences from the date the applicant became aware of the decision adversely affecting their rights.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (10)

  • EAA Company Limited v Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Application No. 21 of 2023)
  • 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 PPDA & Old Kampala Senior Secondary School (Application No. 7 of 2017)
  • Globe World Engineering (U) Ltd v Mbarara City Council (Application No. 14 of 2023)
  • Ssaalongo Matovu v Uganda National Roads Authority and Another (Application No. 3 of 2025)
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (High Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2024)
  • Kakooba Matooke Traders Co-operative Limited v Mbarara City Council and Another (Application No. 34 of 2025)
  • 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.

Tech Planet Development Centre v Fort Portal Regional Referral Hospital 2025 UGPPDPAAT 55 (17 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.