Wakilii

Tisco Construction Uganda Limited v Mukono Municipal Council [2026] UGPPDPAAT 15

Tribunal · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision following administrative review rejection
Decision
Application struck out for lack of locus standi; suspension order vacated

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 lacked locus standi to bring the application because its bid validity expired on 12 October 2025 without valid extension. A letter dated 1 December 2025 could not retrospectively revive the expired bid. Once bid validity expires, a bidder ceases to participate in the procurement process and loses legal standing to lodge complaints or file applications for review. The application was struck out as incompetent without consideration of the merits.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of locus standi; suspension order vacated

Facts

Mukono Municipal Council initiated a restricted bidding process for supply of a steel vibro roller. Three firms submitted bids on 12 June 2025, with Tisco Construction (U) Limited recommended as best evaluated bidder at UGX 317,420,000. The Contracts Committee directed due diligence exercises. Following verification, the Contracts Committee found that Tisco had misrepresented its experience by citing entities that confirmed they had not received equipment from Tisco. The contract was awarded to Victoria Equipment Ltd, the second-ranked bidder, on 18 March 2026. Tisco filed an administrative review on 23 March 2026, which was rejected on 8 April 2026. Tisco then filed Application No. 14 of 2026 before the Tribunal on 10 April 2026. The bid validity period specified in the bidding documents was 12 October 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the Respondent's Accounting Officer accorded the Applicant a fair hearing?
  3. Whether the disqualification of the Applicant, on the basis of the need to conduct additional due diligence regarding the physical performance and durability of the equipment, was proper?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The suspension order dated April 10, 2026, is hereby vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Bid Validity — Effect of Expiry
Upon expiry of bid validity without valid extension, a bidder ceases to participate in the procurement process and loses legal standing to lodge complaints with the Accounting Officer or file applications for review before the Tribunal.
Public Procurement — Bid Validity — Extension — Voluntary Extension by Bidder
Under regulation 62(6) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Rules and Methods for Procurement of Supplies, Works and Non-Consultancy Services) Regulations 2023, a bidder may voluntarily extend bid validity on its own initiative without prompting from the Procuring and Disposing Entity, but such extension must be made before the bid validity period expires.
Public Procurement — Bid Validity — Retrospective Revival — Impossibility
An expired bid cannot be retrospectively revived by subsequent correspondence or expressions of continued commitment. Any attempt to revive an expired bid is a nullity in law.
Public Procurement — Bid Validity — Estoppel — Inapplicability
Bid extension is a legal process which must comply with statutory requirements and cannot be inferred or implied through estoppel. Mere correspondence between a Procuring and Disposing Entity and a former bidder does not of itself extend a bid.
Locus Standi — Procedural Requirements — Substantive Justice
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution does not abrogate procedural rules but requires that they be applied as handmaidens of justice. Procedural requirements governing bidder status cannot be ignored where they determine jurisdiction.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (10)

  • Njau & Others v City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] 1 EA 397
  • The Executive Committee of Iganga Central Market v Iganga Municipal Council (Application No. 26 of 2025)
  • Uzuzi Meter Technologies Limited v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company (Application No. 10 of 2026)
  • Meals on Wheels Ltd (JV) with Maze Establishments Ltd v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (Application No. 23 of 2025)
  • Stephen Mabosi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 16 of 1995)
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)
  • Sabastar General Trading Co. Ltd v Kampala Capital City Authority (Application No. 11 of 2025)
  • Uganda National Roads Authority v COIL (U) Limited (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2021)
  • Application No. 3 of 2021
  • Victoria Insglass Limited v Kira Municipal Council (Registry Application No. 19 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tisco Construction Uganda Limited v Mukono Municipal Council 2026 UGPPDPAAT 15 (30 April 2026)
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.