Wakilii

Urban Research and Training Consultancy (URTC) EA Ltd v Kampala Capital City Authority [2026] UGPPDPAAT 9

Tribunal · 2026 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out for being filed out of time

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 struck out the application as incompetent for being filed outside the statutory ten-day period prescribed under sections 115(1)(a) and 115(2)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The Accounting Officer's decision period expired on 31 January 2026, and the applicant was required to file by 10 February 2026 but filed on 13 February 2026. Statutory timelines under the Act are strict and cannot be extended; late filing extinguishes the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Outcome

Application struck out for being filed out of time

Facts

Kampala Capital City Authority initiated a procurement for consultancy services for the Kampala Physical Development Plan under reference KCCA/CONS/2025-2026/00018 using Open Domestic Bidding. Two bids were received on 12 December 2025 from the Applicant and Technology Consults Ltd. Following technical evaluation approved on 18 December 2025, financial proposals were opened and Technology Consults Ltd was declared Best Evaluated Bidder on 8 January 2026 at UGX 2,350,583,600. The Applicant lodged a complaint with the Accounting Officer on 21 January 2026, attended a debrief on 27 January 2026, and received a detailed written debrief on 5 February 2026. The Applicant filed the present application before the Tribunal on 13 February 2026.

Issues

  1. Whether the application before the Tribunal is competent?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred in law and procedure by opening the bidders' financial proposals before displaying and/or communicating the technical evaluation scores?
  3. Whether the Respondent conducted a non-objective, biased, or unfair evaluation of the Applicant's technical proposal?
  4. Whether there are available remedies to the Parties?

Orders

  • The Application is hereby struck out.
  • The suspension order dated 13th February 2026 is hereby vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Statutory Timelines — Jurisdiction of Appeals Tribunal
Statutory timelines under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are strict and cannot be extended; late filing of an application extinguishes the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Accounting Officer's Decision Period
Where an Accounting Officer does not make or communicate a decision within the ten-day period prescribed under section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, a bidder may apply to the Tribunal within ten days from the date of expiry of that period.
Public Procurement — Statutory Timelines — Precedence Over Administrative Instruments
Statutory timelines under an Act of Parliament take precedence over administrative instruments such as the Public Service Standing Orders; the mere fact that the last day of a statutory period falls on a Saturday does not absolve the responsible authority from the obligation to act within the prescribed timeframe unless that Saturday coincides with a public holiday.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Validity of Late Decision
An administrative review decision issued by an Accounting Officer outside the mandatory ten-day statutory period prescribed under section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act is null and void.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (11)

  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (High Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2024)
  • Geo Jet Placements Ltd v Mbarara City
  • Arapai Market Traders and Vendors' Association Ltd v Serere District Local Government
  • GIBB (Pty) Limited in Joint Venture with ACMIRS Consulting Limited v Ministry of Works and Transport and SGR Project
  • Doshnut Uganda Ltd v Ministry of Water and Environment
  • Roko Construction Limited v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority
  • Fleco Holding Ltd v Ministry of Water and Environment (Application No. 4 of 2026)
  • Xinjiang and Beijing Shine Technology Consortium v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 37 of 2025)
  • Minet Uganda Insurance Brokers Limited v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 3 of 2026)
  • Cementers Uganda Ltd v National Social Security Fund (Application No. 1 of 2026)
  • Geo Jet Placements Ltd v Mbarara City (Application No. 45 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Urban Research and Training Consultancy (URTC) EA Ltd v Kampala Capital City Authority 2026 UGPPDPAAT 9 (5 March 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.