Wakilii

Winaz Commercial Investment Limited v Masindi District Local Government (Application 26 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGPPDPAAT 20 · 2024 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
Procurement cancelled. Applicant's administrative review fees to be refunded. Respondent may re-tender if it wishes.

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 the Accounting Officer erred in dismissing the applicant's administrative review complaint for non-payment of fees without proper guidance or reasonable time to pay. The contract award to MITA Engineering & Logistics Ltd was invalid because it was made after the bid validity period had expired. The procurement was cancelled and the applicant's administrative review fees were ordered to be refunded.

Outcome

Procurement cancelled. Applicant's administrative review fees to be refunded. Respondent may re-tender if it wishes.

Facts

Masindi District Local Government tendered for construction of facilities at St. Andrea Kaahwa Secondary School under the UGIFT program. Eight bidders submitted bids on January 29, 2024, with a bid validity period expiring April 19, 2024. On April 29, 2024, the Respondent issued a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder naming MITA Engineering & Logistics Ltd as the successful bidder at UGX 1,781,387,000. The Applicant's bid was rejected for allegedly altering bills of quantities. The Applicant filed an administrative review complaint on May 13, 2024. The Accounting Officer dismissed the complaint by two letters dated May 17, 2024, citing late filing and non-payment of administrative review fees. The Applicant then filed this application with the Tribunal on May 22, 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the Accounting Officer of the Respondent erred when she dismissed the Applicant's complaint for non-payment of administrative review fees?
  2. Whether the award of the contract to MITA Engineering & Logistics Ltd is valid?
  3. Whether the Respondent erred when it disqualified the Applicant's bid?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The procurement for the construction of facilities at St. Andrea Kaahwa Secondary School in Labongo Sub County in Masindi District under Procurement Reference Number: MOES-MASINDI/UGIFT/WRKS/2023-24/00002, is cancelled.
  • The Respondent may re-tender the procurement if it so wishes.
  • The Respondent shall refund the Applicant's administrative review fees.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated May 22, 2024, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Review — Time Limits — Commencement of Period
The ten working days for filing a complaint to the Accounting Officer of a procuring entity commences from the date when the bidder first becomes aware or ought to have become aware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint, not from the expiry of the display period indicated on the Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder.
Administrative Review — Duty to Guide on Fees
An Accounting Officer has a duty to guide a complainant on the prescribed administrative review fees and the mode of payment upon receipt of the complaint, and must give the complainant a reasonable timeline within which to pay the fees.
Administrative Review — Late Payment of Fees — Effect
Late payment of administrative review fees is not necessarily fatal to a complaint, and even actual non-payment of fees has been held not to be fatal, so long as the proper fees can be assessed and paid.
Public Procurement — Bid Validity — Extension Requirements
Where an extension to the bid validity period becomes necessary, a bidder must be requested in writing, before the expiry of validity of their bid, to extend the validity for a specified period. It is not lawful to evaluate expired bids or to award a contract to a bidder whose bid has expired.
Public Procurement — Bid Validity — Voluntary Extension
A bidder may on his or her own discretion extend the bid validity period where the procuring entity delays to request the bidder to extend the bid and the bid validity period is likely to expire before the completion of the procurement process.
Administrative Review — Unjust Enrichment — Refund of Fees
In the interest of fairness, a procuring entity cannot be allowed to benefit from its own wrong or to be unjustly enriched by retaining an applicant's administrative review fees where the failure to extend bids in time was occasioned by the entity's neglect.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.89(3)(b)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.89(7)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Administrative Review) Regulations 2023 reg.4(4)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Administrative Review) Regulations 2023 reg.8
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Rules and Methods for Procurement of Supplies, Works and Non-Consultancy Services) Regulations 2023 reg.62(1)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Rules and Methods for Procurement of Supplies, Works and Non-Consultancy Services) Regulations 2023 reg.62(2)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Rules and Methods for Procurement of Supplies, Works and Non-Consultancy Services) Regulations 2023 reg.62(5)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Rules and Methods for Procurement of Supplies, Works and Non-Consultancy Services) Regulations 2023 reg.62(6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Nam Terminal Consults Ltd v Mbale District Local Government (Application No. 16 of 2024)
  • Application No, 1 of 2023
  • Vcon Construction (U) Limited v Makerere University (Application No. 3 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Winaz Commercial Investment Limited v Masindi District Local Government (Application 26 of 2024) 2024 UGPPDPAAT 20 (10 June 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.