Wakilii

Uganda Association of Consulting Engineers Limited v Prime Minister of the Republic of Uganda and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 182 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 70 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of PPDA guidelines and Prime Minister's directives
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed with costs to the respondents

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court dismissed the application for judicial review challenging PPDA Guidelines No. 3 of 2024, which require consulting engineers to provide both professional indemnity insurance and performance guarantees. The court held that Section 65 of the PPDA Act applies to procuring entities, not to PPDA as regulator; that PPDA had statutory authority under sections 8 and 134 to issue guidelines without mandatory consultation; that FIDIC guidelines are persuasive but not binding; and that requiring both forms of security is not irrational as they serve distinct purposes.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The Uganda Association of Consulting Engineers Limited challenged PPDA Guidelines No. 3 of 2024 and directives issued by the Prime Minister in June 2024 requiring consulting engineers on government projects to provide performance guarantees in addition to professional indemnity insurance. The applicant contended that the guidelines were enacted without consultation contrary to Section 65 of the PPDA Act, that they violated international standards set by FIDIC, and that the dual requirement made business unnecessarily costly. The Prime Minister's directives followed site visits to construction projects in Kampala. PPDA opposed the application, arguing it had statutory authority to issue guidelines under sections 8 and 134 of the PPDA Act without mandatory consultation, and that the requirement for both forms of security was intended to protect government from different risks.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is amenable to judicial review.
  2. Whether the PPDA Guidelines No. 3 of 2024 were enacted illegally contrary to Section 65 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act.
  3. Whether the PPDA acted with procedural impropriety by failing to consult stakeholders before issuing Guidelines No. 3 of 2024.
  4. Whether the requirement for both professional indemnity insurance and performance guarantees is irrational.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Scope — Private Rights Distinguished
Judicial review is concerned with the process through which a decision is arrived at, not with the correctness of the decision itself, and does not deal with private rights but is intended to check excesses in the exercise of public power.
Judicial Review — Illegality — Statutory Interpretation
Section 65 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, which requires procuring and disposing entities to use industry standards defined by internationally recognized bodies, applies to procuring entities and not to PPDA as regulator when exercising its mandate to issue guidelines under sections 8 and 134 of the Act.
Judicial Review — International Guidelines — Persuasive Authority
FIDIC guidelines, though a good reference point for engineering contracts, are persuasive in nature and not mandatory, and cannot oust the jurisdiction and authority of a statutory regulator to issue guidelines suited to local circumstances.
Judicial Review — Procedural Impropriety — Duty to Consult
A public authority can only be found to have acted with procedural impropriety for failure to consult if there is a clear provision of law imposing a duty to consult; where the enabling statute does not mandate consultation, failure to consult stakeholders before issuing guidelines does not constitute procedural impropriety.
Judicial Review — Irrationality — Performance Guarantees and Professional Indemnity
A requirement for both performance guarantees and professional indemnity insurance is not irrational where the two instruments serve distinct purposes: performance guarantees protect against non-performance of contract obligations, while professional indemnity insurance covers negligence arising during performance of professional services.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (5)

  • Byaruhanga John Patrick v Commissioner for Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 235 of 2024)
  • Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Heavens [1982] 3 All ER 108
  • Real Task Agencies Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 069 of 2023)
  • Ignatius Loyola Malungu v Inspector General of Government (Miscellaneous Cause No. 059 of 2016)
  • Silver Kayondo v Bank of Uganda (Miscellaneous Cause No. 109 of 2022)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Association of Consulting Engineers Limited v Prime Minister of the Republic of Uganda and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 182 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 70 (13 June 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.