Wakilii

Tumwebaze v Mbarara City and Another (Application No 21 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 20 · 2022 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision under section 91I(1)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 (as amended)
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 the Applicant, a taxpayer and resident, lacked locus standi to challenge the procurement decision under section 91I(1)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 because he failed to demonstrate that any of his legal rights had been adversely affected by the Accounting Officer's decision. The application was struck out without consideration of the merits.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of locus standi

Facts

Mbarara City advertised a tender for consultancy services for road supervision. After technical and financial evaluation, UB Consulting Engineers Ltd in JV with Professional Engineering Consultants Ltd was declared the best evaluated bidder with a contract price of UGX 1,441,020,000. Tumwebaze Stephen Kiba, a resident and taxpayer of Mbarara City, filed an application challenging the procurement decision, arguing that the contract should have been awarded to the lowest bidder and that the arithmetic correction of the 2nd Respondent's bid was wrongful. The Applicant claimed to be adversely affected as a taxpayer and beneficiary of public funds.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi to institute this application?
  2. Whether the 1st Respondent's display of the Best Evaluated Bidder Notice flouted the procurement laws?
  3. Whether the 1st Respondent erred in correcting the 2nd Respondent's arithmetic error?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is hereby struck out.
  • The suspension order dated 7th July 2022 is vacated.
  • Each party should bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Locus Standi — Section 91I(1)(b) Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act — Requirements for Non-Bidders
For a person who is not a bidder to have locus standi under section 91I(1)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003, the applicant must demonstrate that he or she had some legal right in the first place and that such right has been adversely affected by the decision of the Accounting Officer.
Administrative Law — Locus Standi — Taxpayer Standing — Insufficient Interest
Mere status as a taxpayer or resident, without demonstration of a specific legal right that has been adversely affected, is insufficient to confer locus standi to challenge a procurement decision under section 91I(1)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003.
Administrative Law — Locus Standi — Distinction Between Feeling Aggrieved and Being Aggrieved
There is a difference between feeling aggrieved and being aggrieved; a person adversely affected must show that he or she is or would be a victim of the alleged unlawful act, and it is not enough to assert the existence of a right without demonstrating the extent of such right and its breach.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Validity of Administrative Review Decision — Statutory Timelines
Where an Accounting Officer makes an administrative review decision outside the statutory timeline of 10 calendar days required by section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003, such decision is null and void and of no legal consequence.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (10)

  • Obon Infrastructure Development JV v Mbarara City and Others (Application No. 20 of 2021)
  • Old Kampala Students Association v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority and Old Kampala Senior Secondary School (Application No. 7 of 2017)
  • Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Capital Markets Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 287 of 2021)
  • Andrew Oluka v Petroleum Authority of Uganda and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 252 of 2021)
  • Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 84 of 2021)
  • Regina v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses [1982] AC 617; [1981] 2 All ER 93; [1981] 2 WLR 722; [1981] 1 WLR 793
  • Union of Refugee Women and Others v Director: Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority and Others 2007 4 SA 395 (CC)
  • Wessels v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (594/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 81; 2010 (1) SA 128 (GNP) (2 June 2009)
  • MBJ Technologies Ltd v Mbarara City and Others (Application No. 17 of 2022)
  • Super Taste Ltd v Bank of Uganda (Application No. 33 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tumwebaze v Mbarara City and Another (Application No 21 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 20 (27 July 2022)
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.