Wakilii

Twed Property Development Limited v Office of the Prime Minister [2025] UGPPDPAAT 56

Tribunal · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application allowed; procurement remitted for re-evaluation; administrative review fees refunded to Applicant

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 had locus standi as a bidder having extended its bid validity. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to examine whether the procurement cancellation complied with statutory requirements. The purported cancellation was illegal because it was effected after contract award by the Contracts Committee and without the required approval of the Contracts Committee. The award to the best evaluated bidder was also illegal because the unit rate in the bidder's offer was altered during negotiations based on the Chief Government Valuer's report, contrary to the regulations governing competitive procurement negotiations.

Outcome

Application allowed; procurement remitted for re-evaluation; administrative review fees refunded to Applicant

Facts

The Office of the Prime Minister issued a bid notice for emergency procurement of office space using open domestic bidding. Two bidders submitted bids: Twed Property Development Ltd and King Ceasor Augustus Mulenga. After evaluation, the Respondent published a Best Evaluated Bidder Notice on October 7, 2025, indicating King Ceasor Augustus Mulenga as the best evaluated bidder at a monthly contract price of UGX 290,622,200 based on the Chief Government Valuer's assessment. The Applicant's bid was deemed unsuccessful at the financial evaluation stage. The Applicant lodged an administrative review complaint on October 20, 2025, challenging the substitution of the best evaluated bidder's price, reliance on the Chief Government Valuer's opinion, and technical non-compliance. On October 30, 2025, the Accounting Officer found the complaint valid and annulled the procurement process. The Applicant then filed Application No. 41 of 2025 before the Tribunal on November 5, 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this Application?
  3. Whether the Respondent's cancellation of the procurement was lawful?
  4. Whether the best evaluated bidder's bid price was lawfully awarded?

Orders

  • The Application is allowed.
  • The Respondent's administrative review decision dated October 30, 2025 is set aside.
  • The contract award to King Ceasor Augustus Mulenga dated September 30, 2025 is set aside.
  • The notice of best evaluated bidder dated October 7, 2025 is set aside.
  • The procurement is remitted back to the Respondent for re-evaluation in a manner not inconsistent with this decision, the bidding document and the law.
  • The corrective action(s) shall be completed within 10 working days from the date of this decision.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated November 5, 2025, is vacated.
  • The Respondent shall refund the Applicant's administrative review fees.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Bid Validity Extension
A bidder who extends its bid validity period before expiry, whether on its own initiative or at the request of the procuring entity, retains status as a bidder and has locus standi to bring an application for administrative review before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal.
Public Procurement — Tribunal Jurisdiction — Review of Cancellation Decisions
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine whether a purported cancellation of a procurement process complied with the statutory framework under section 81 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. Where the cancellation did not meet statutory requirements or no valid cancellation occurred, the Tribunal's jurisdiction to review the procurement decision remains unaffected by section 115(3) of the Act.
Public Procurement — Cancellation — Timing and Procedure
Under section 81(1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and regulation 14(5) of the Procuring and Disposing Entities Regulations, cancellation of a procurement process can only be effected before a contract is awarded to the best evaluated bidder and must be approved by the Contracts Committee. Once the Contracts Committee has awarded a contract, the procurement process can no longer be cancelled, regardless of whether a formal contract has been signed.
Public Procurement — Accounting Officer Powers — Limits on Unilateral Action
Section 40 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act requires the Accounting Officer, the Contracts Committee, the Procurement and Disposal Unit, the user department and the Evaluation Committee to act independently in relation to their respective functions and powers. The Accounting Officer cannot unilaterally usurp the mandate of the Procurement and Disposal Unit, the user department or the Contracts Committee in relation to cancellation of a procurement process.
Public Procurement — Negotiations — Alteration of Unit Rates in Competitive Procurement
In competitive procurement, negotiations may be carried out for purposes including reduction of quantities, but there is no enabling provision for negotiations to alter the bidder's unit rate. Where the unit rate of the best evaluated bidder is altered during negotiations, the purported award is illegal.
Public Procurement — Chief Government Valuer — Role in Evaluation
A procuring entity may lawfully request the Chief Government Valuer to undertake a valuation of properties as part of due diligence and to guide in negotiations. However, the report of the Chief Government Valuer cannot be used to alter the bid prices submitted by bidders in a competitive procurement process.
Public Procurement — Negotiations — Requirement for Contracts Committee Approval
Under regulation 3(6) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Negotiations) Regulations, negotiations with a bidder must be authorized by the Contracts Committee before they are conducted. Negotiations conducted without Contracts Committee approval are unlawful, and subsequent purported approval of a negotiation report does not cure the defect.

Legislation cited (38)

Cases cited (11)

  • Njau and others v City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] 1 EA 397
  • Arua Municipal Council v Arua United Transporters SACCO (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017)
  • Twed Property Development Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 13 of 2025)
  • Victoria Insglass Ltd v Kira Municipal Council (Application No. 19 of 2025)
  • Kingdom Kampala Limited v Judicial Service Commission (Application No. 34 of 2022)
  • Mulago Hill Diagnostics Ltd v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Application No. 13 of 2022)
  • Preg Tech Communications v Uganda Police (Application No. 32 of 2021)
  • Mugerwa Fred v Sembabule District Local Government (Application No. 23 of 2022)
  • Impiger Technologies Private Limited v Higher Education Students Financing Board (Application No. 25 of 2022)
  • Global Paper Products Ltd v Uganda National Examinations Board (Application No. 11 of 2023)
  • Eyere Company SMC Limited v Arua City Council (Application No. 28 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Twed Property Development Limited v Office of the Prime Minister 2025 UGPPDPAAT 56 (21 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.