Wakilii

Victoria Equipment Limited v National Animal Genetic Resources Centre and Data Bank (Application 20 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGPPDPAAT 29 · 2024 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Direct application to the Tribunal for review of procurement decision under section 89(9) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act
Decision
Application struck out as time-barred; suspension order vacated

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 time-barred. Under section 91(2)(c) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, a direct application to the Tribunal must be filed within ten days from the date of the alleged breach. The applicant became aware of the Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder on March 22, 2024, making the deadline April 2, 2024 (accounting for Easter Monday). The application filed on April 8, 2024 was out of time. The Tribunal has no power to extend statutory timelines, and once the deadline passes, jurisdiction is extinguished.

Outcome

Application struck out as time-barred; suspension order vacated

Facts

The Respondent initiated procurement for supply and delivery of one heavy duty excavator with attendant service van under reference number NAGRC/SUPLS/23-24/00021. Two bidders submitted bids: Victoria Equipment Ltd (the Applicant) and Mantrac (U) Ltd. On January 16, 2024, the Respondent issued a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder indicating Mantrac (U) Ltd as the successful bidder at UGX 1,274,000,000/= inclusive of 18% VAT. The Notice stated that the Applicant's bid was disqualified because it offered a 2022 model instead of 2023, and the dimensions and capacities were less than required specifications. The Applicant claims it only became aware of the Notice on March 22, 2024 when it visited the Respondent's offices to inquire about the procurement status. The Applicant filed a direct application to the Tribunal on April 8, 2024, alleging deliberate omission to communicate the Notice and conflict of interest.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application is time barred?
  2. Whether the Application was validly signed by an authorised representative of the Applicant?
  3. Whether the Application was properly made directly to the Tribunal?
  4. Whether the Respondent erred when it failed to communicate the Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder to all bidders?
  5. Whether the Best Evaluated Bidder's bid was responsive to the evaluation criteria?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated April 8, 2024, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Time Limits for Direct Applications to Tribunal
Under section 91(2)(c) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, a direct application to the Tribunal must be filed within ten days from the date when the omission or breach by the procuring and disposing entity is alleged to have taken place.
Civil Procedure — Limitation Periods — Computation of Time — Public Holidays
Where the last day for filing an application falls on a public holiday, the deadline is deemed to be the next working day pursuant to section 34(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Tribunal Jurisdiction — Extension of Time
There is no enabling provision within the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act that accords the Tribunal power to enlarge or extend time. Once a party fails to move within the time set by law, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is extinguished as far as the matter is concerned.
Civil Procedure — Limitation Periods — Mandatory Nature of Statutory Timelines
Timelines within the procurement statute are set for a purpose and are couched in mandatory terms. Failure to comply with statutory timelines renders an application time-barred and incompetent.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (1)

  • Pynet Technologies SMC Ltd v Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (Applications No. 1 and 2 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Victoria Equipment Limited v National Animal Genetic Resources Centre and Data Bank (Application 20 of 2024) 2024 UGPPDPAAT 29 (29 April 2024)
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.