Wakilii

Xian Electric Engineering Company Limited v Mukono District Local Government [2025] UGPPDPAAT 6

Tribunal · 2025 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out for lack of locus standi

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 Applicant lacked locus standi to bring the application because it had not taken concrete steps to participate in the procurement process. Merely attending a pre-bid meeting without submitting a written application to purchase the bidding document or paying the required non-refundable fee of UGX 300,000 per lot was insufficient to qualify as a bidder under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The Tribunal struck out the application without addressing the substantive merits.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of locus standi

Facts

Mukono District Local Government advertised a tender for upgrading two road projects under the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area-Urban Development Program funded by the World Bank. The bidding document contained a clause (ITB 1.1) excluding bidders with running contracts under the GKMA program. Xian Electric Engineering Co Ltd attended a pre-bid meeting on December 6, 2024, and objected to the exclusion clause, arguing it violated procurement principles. The Applicant made a reference to the Accounting Officer on December 10, 2024, and filed an administrative review complaint on December 24, 2024. The Applicant then filed this application before the Tribunal on January 7, 2025. At the hearing, the Applicant's General Manager confirmed that the Applicant had neither purchased the bidding document nor submitted a bid in any GKMA-UDP projects, and that the Applicant was a supplier to one of the bidders intending to participate.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law and fact when he omitted or ignored to make any response to the references made by the Applicant?
  3. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law and fact when he omitted or ignored to guide the Applicant on the mode of payment of administrative review fees?
  4. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law and fact when he omitted or ignored to make an administrative review compliant to the complaints lodged by the Applicant?
  5. Whether Part 1, Section 2 of the Bid Data Sheet ITB 1.1 of the impugned bidding document violates the basic principles of public procurement to wit non-discrimination, transparency, accountability and fairness, maximization of competition and achievement of value for money and economy and efficiency as stated in sections 46, 47, 48, 49 and 51 of the PPDA Act Cap 205?
  6. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's January 7, 2025 suspension order is vacated.
  • Each party is to bear its costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Definition of Bidder
Under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act Cap 205, a bidder is defined as a physical or artificial person intending to participate or participating in public procurement proceedings. However, to establish locus standi before the Tribunal, a person must take concrete positive steps demonstrating an intention to participate, such as submitting a written application to purchase the bidding document and paying the required non-refundable fee. Merely attending a pre-bid meeting without purchasing the bidding document is insufficient to qualify as a bidder with standing to challenge the procurement process.
Public Procurement — Pre-Bid Meetings — Recourse for Dissatisfied Persons
A person who is not satisfied with the response provided to a request for clarification at a pre-bid meeting or site visit may refer the matter to the Accounting Officer. If still dissatisfied or of the opinion that the procurement process is not being conducted fairly and equitably, such person has recourse to refer the matter to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority. Matters arising out of pre-bid meetings do not, on their own, grant locus for any person to invoke the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 115 of the PPDA Act.
Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Consistency of Position
A party who applied to the Accounting Officer for administrative review cannot change its position to claim standing as a person whose rights are adversely affected by the decision of the Accounting Officer for purposes of obtaining locus standi before the Tribunal under section 115(1)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act Cap 205.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (2)

  • dotGOV Solutions LLC v National Information Technology-Uganda (Application No. 49 of 2024)
  • Trio Consultants Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 33 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Xian Electric Engineering Company Limited v Mukono District Local Government 2025 UGPPDPAAT 6 (28 January 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.