Wakilii

Victoria Insglass Limited v Kira Municipal Council [2025] UGPPDPAAT 34

Tribunal · 2025 Application Granted 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 allowed; Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder and procurement cancellation set aside; matter remitted for re-evaluation within 10 working days

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 it had jurisdiction to review the procurement cancellation decision. The Accounting Officer's administrative review decision was made outside the statutory 10-day timeline and was therefore null and void. The procurement cancellation was unlawful because it occurred after contract award, contrary to section 81(1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The best evaluated bidder's tax clearance certificate was submitted after the bid deadline and illegally considered. The Applicant's disqualification based on user department dissatisfaction and staff misconduct was invalid as these were not stated evaluation criteria. The application was allowed and the procurement process ordered to be re-evaluated.

Outcome

Application allowed; Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder and procurement cancellation set aside; matter remitted for re-evaluation within 10 working days

Facts

In May 2025, Kira Municipal Council invited bids for revenue collection enforcement services. Two bids were received: from Continental Looks Limited and Victoria Insglass Limited. On July 8, 2025, Continental Looks Limited was declared the best evaluated bidder at a contract price of UGX 1,131,472,000 with a 15% commission. Victoria Insglass Limited's bid was rejected on grounds that the user department was dissatisfied with the service provider's field operations due to staff misconduct. Victoria Insglass filed an administrative review complaint on July 9, 2025. The Accounting Officer responded on July 22, 2025, finding merit in the complaint but deciding to cancel the procurement. The Contracts Committee approved the cancellation on July 21, 2025. Victoria Insglass then filed this application before the Tribunal on July 28, 2025, challenging the procurement decision and cancellation.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this Application?
  2. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law and fact when he omitted to make a response within the timelines stipulated by law?
  3. Whether the Respondent's cancellation of the procurement was lawful?
  4. Whether the bid of Continental Looks Ltd was responsive to the requirement for a tax clearance certificate?
  5. Whether the reason for the disqualification of the Applicant's bid was valid?

Orders

  • The Application is allowed.
  • The Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder dated July 8, 2025, is set aside.
  • The cancellation of the procurement is set aside.
  • The Respondent is ordered to re-evaluate the bids in a manner not inconsistent with this decision, the bidding document, and the law.
  • The re-evaluation shall be conducted within 10 working days from the date of this decision.
  • The Respondent shall refund the Applicant's administrative review fees.
  • The Tribunal's Suspension Order dated July 8, 2025, is vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Tribunal Jurisdiction — Review of Procurement Cancellation
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction to inquire into the decision-making process leading to a procurement cancellation to determine whether the cancellation adhered to the legal framework under section 81 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is only excluded under section 115(3)(a) where a valid cancellation in accordance with section 81 has been established. If the Tribunal finds that no cancellation occurred or that the cancellation did not comply with section 81 requirements, its jurisdiction remains intact.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Statutory Timelines
An Accounting Officer who receives an administrative review complaint must make and communicate a decision in writing within 10 days as required by section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The statutory timeline for making a decision is not dependent on the date of payment of administrative review fees. A decision made after the expiry of the 10-day period is null and void and of no legal effect.
Public Procurement — Cancellation of Procurement — Timing Restrictions
Under section 81(1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, a procuring entity may cancel a procurement process only before contract award. Once a Contracts Committee has approved an evaluation report and awarded a contract, the procurement cannot be cancelled even if the contract has not yet been signed. The Contracts Committee becomes functus officio after making a contract award and cannot subsequently approve a cancellation of that procurement.
Public Procurement — Bid Evaluation — Post-Deadline Document Submission
An evaluation committee acts illegally when it considers a document that was not part of a bidder's original submission and was issued after the bid submission deadline. A tax clearance certificate issued after the bid deadline and not included in the original bid cannot be relied upon to establish compliance with bidding requirements, as this violates statutory requirements of transparency and ethics in public procurement.
Public Procurement — Evaluation Criteria — Prohibition Against Amendment
Section 76(3) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and regulation 5 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2023 prohibit an evaluation committee from using any evaluation criteria other than those stated in the bidding documents. An evaluation committee acts illegally when it disqualifies a bidder based on extraneous criteria such as user department dissatisfaction or staff misconduct that were not specified as evaluation criteria in the bidding document.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (9)

  • 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)
  • BUU-Lepu Foundation Ltd v Lira City Council (Application No. 14 of 2025)
  • Jilk Construction Company Limited v Kira Municipal Council (Application No. 31 of 2024)
  • Global Paper Products Ltd v Uganda National Examinations Board (Application No. 11 of 2023)
  • Elite Chemicals Limited v Uganda Coffee Development Authority (Application No. 7 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Victoria Insglass Limited v Kira Municipal Council 2025 UGPPDPAAT 34 (18 August 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.