Valley Technical Services v Uganda National Roads Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 301 of 2018)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed a judicial review application challenging a procurement process for road maintenance contracts. The court held that judicial review is not the appropriate remedy for a disgruntled competitor in a procurement process. The applicant had committed illegalities and irregularities during the procurement process, including presenting false documents and misrepresenting facts, which automatically disqualified it from the bidding process.

Outcome

Application dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

Valley Technical Services participated in bids for mechanized maintenance of unpaved national roads under UNRA procurement reference UNRA/WRKS/2016-2017/00018 for lots 4 and 7. The applicant was eliminated after due diligence exercises revealed failure to provide commitment letters, original completion certificates, and valid PPDA registration certificates. The applicant appealed to PPDA, which ordered UNRA to undertake fresh due diligence. A second due diligence found that the applicant had misrepresented facts, presented false lease agreements for equipment from Nathan Mwesigye, and that equipment was in poor condition or written off after accidents. The applicant filed for judicial review seeking certiorari and prohibition orders, claiming the procurement process was irregular and that UNRA failed to provide the due diligence report. By the time of the ruling, contracts had been awarded to other bidders and works were ongoing.

Issues

1. Whether the Respondent's act of awarding contracts for lots 4 and 7 to other bidders was illegal.
2. Whether the delay by the Respondent to communicate the due diligence report and declaration of best evaluated bidder was irrational, unfair, discriminatory, improper and illegal.
3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature Act s.36(1)(b)
• Judicature Act s.36(1)(c)
• Judicature Act s.36(1)(e)
• Judicature Act s.38
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.89(2)

Cases cited (3)

• Rosemary Nalwadda v Uganda Aids Commission (HCMA No. 0045 of 2010)
• Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
• Stream Aviation Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 377 of 2008)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Gat Consults Limited and Lee Construction Limited v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority and Another (Application No 6 of 2021)

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