Wakilii

Trio Consultants Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority [2024] UGPPDPAAT 34

Tribunal · 2024 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review to the Tribunal following dismissal of complaint by Accounting Officer
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 Trio Consultants Limited lacked locus standi to file the application because it was not the bidder in the procurement. The bidder was Beijing Expressway Supervision Co. Ltd in association with Trio Consultants Limited. A party who applied for administrative review to the Accounting Officer as a bidder under section 106 cannot change its status to a person adversely affected under section 115(1)(b) to obtain standing before the Tribunal. The application was struck out as incompetent.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of locus standi

Facts

Uganda National Roads Authority invited bids for consultancy services for road design and build projects. Beijing Expressway Supervision Co. Ltd in association with Trio Consultants Limited was declared the best evaluated bidder and a contract was entered into on January 19, 2024. Beijing Expressway subsequently withdrew from the position of Engineer in February 2024. The Respondent issued a new Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder on May 21, 2024, naming Via Infrastructure SRL in JV with UB Consulting Engineers Ltd as the new best evaluated bidder. Trio Consultants Limited, acting alone, filed an application for administrative review to the Accounting Officer on June 4, 2024, which was dismissed. Trio Consultants then applied to the Tribunal on June 28, 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi to file the Application?
  2. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the Application?
  3. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law when she held that the Respondent did not require the approval of the Attorney General in accordance with regulation 56(3) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Contracts) Regulations, 2023?
  4. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law when she held that the Applicant is not entitled to compensation for the works so far done on the project?
  5. Whether the Best Evaluated Bidder Notice displayed on May 21, 2024 was valid?
  6. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated July 1, 2024, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Review — Locus Standi — Joint Ventures and Associations
Where a bid is submitted by a joint venture or association, the bidder for purposes of administrative review is the joint venture or association as a whole, not the individual partners or associates. An individual member of a joint venture or association has no locus standi to file an application for administrative review in its own name.
Administrative Review — Change of Status — Bidder to Aggrieved Person
A party who applied for administrative review to the Accounting Officer as a bidder under section 106 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act cannot subsequently change its status to a person whose rights are adversely affected under section 115(1)(b) for purposes of obtaining locus standi before the Tribunal.
Locus Standi — Competence of Application
Where an applicant lacks locus standi to apply to the Accounting Officer for administrative review, there is no competent application for administrative review, and consequently no competent application can be made to the Tribunal.
Public Procurement — Definition of Bidder
Under section 2 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, a bidder is a physical or artificial person intending to participate or participating in public procurement proceedings. Where parties submit a bid as a joint venture or association, the bidder is the joint venture or association, not the individual members.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (11)

  • Twenty Third Century Systems PVT Ltd v PPDA & NSSF (Application No. 5 of 2017)
  • EGIS Road Operations SA v PPDA and Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 11 of 2020)
  • JV Kadac-Globaltec v Uganda Prisons Service (Application No. 4 of 2022)
  • Obon Infrastructure Development JV v Mbarara City and Another (Application No. 20 of 2021)
  • Old Kampala Students Association v PPDA and Old Kampala Senior Secondary School (Application No. 20 of 2021)
  • China Civil Engineering and Construction Corporation v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 11 of 2023)
  • MBJ Technologies Limited v Mbarara City & Ors (Application No. 17 of 2022)
  • Mbarara City & Anr v Obon Infrastructure Development JV (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2021)
  • Apple Properties Limited v Uganda Human Rights Commission (Application No. 6 of 2023)
  • Tumwebaze Stephen Kiba v Mbarara City Council & Another (Application No. 21 of 2022)
  • Globe World Engineering (U) Ltd & Another (Application No. 14 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Trio Consultants Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority 2024 UGPPDPAAT 34 (15 July 2024)
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.