Wakilii

Yaweh Technical Services Limited v Soroti District Local Government [2024] UGPPDPAAT 46

Tribunal · 2024 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision following complaint to Accounting Officer
Decision
Application struck out for being filed out of time

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 incompetent for being filed outside the statutory time limit. The Applicant's complaint was lodged on 5 November 2024. The Accounting Officer's decision dated 18 November 2024 was made outside the mandatory ten-day period prescribed by section 106(7) and was therefore no decision at all. The Applicant's time to apply to the Tribunal commenced on 17 November 2024 and elapsed on 27 November 2024. The application filed on 2 December 2024 was therefore out of time. The Tribunal has no power to extend time under the Act.

Outcome

Application struck out for being filed out of time

Facts

Soroti District Local Government initiated procurement for construction of a two-classroom block at Abule Tubur Primary School using the quotation method. On 13 September 2024, six firms were invited to submit quotations. Three bidders submitted bids by 30 September 2024: Yaweh Technical Services Ltd (the Applicant), Msahada Contractors and Supplies Ltd, and Inofit Investments Limited. On 1 November 2024, the Respondent issued a Best Evaluated Bidder Notice naming Msahada Construction and Supplies Ltd as the best-evaluated bidder at UGX 93,989,950. On 5 November 2024, the Applicant filed a complaint challenging the outcome. The Accounting Officer responded on 18 November 2024, ordering re-evaluation or cancellation because the Applicant's bid was non-responsive and Msahada had not been invited to submit a bid. The Applicant received this decision on 20 November 2024 and filed the instant application with the Tribunal on 2 December 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is competent before the Tribunal.
  2. Whether the Respondent erred in law in determining Msahada Contractors and Supplies Ltd as the best-evaluated bidder.
  3. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact in evaluating the Applicant's bid.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's December 2, 2024 suspension order is vacated.
  • Each party is to bear its costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Statutory Time Limits — Commencement of Complaint
A challenge to a procurement decision commences when a written complaint is submitted to the Accounting Officer, regardless of when the prescribed administrative review fees are paid. Late payment of filing fees is not necessarily fatal so long as the proper fees can be accessed and paid. A complaint cannot be lodged in instalments.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Accounting Officer's Decision — Mandatory Time Limits
Under section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, an Accounting Officer must mandatorily make and communicate a decision within ten days of receipt of a complaint. A decision made outside this prescribed statutory timeframe is made in total breach of the law and is no decision at all.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Appeals to Tribunal — Time Limits for Filing
Where an Accounting Officer does not make or communicate a decision within the period specified in section 106(7), a bidder may apply to the Tribunal within ten days from the date of expiry of the period within which the Accounting Officer ought to have made and communicated the decision. An application filed outside this statutory period is incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Statutory Time Limits — Effect of Non-Compliance
Timelines within the procurement statute are mandatory and set for a purpose. There is no enabling provision within the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act that gives the Tribunal power to enlarge or extend time. Once a party fails to move within the time set by law, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is extinguished as far as the matter is concerned.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (6)

  • Palm Construction Co. Ltd v Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (Application No. 45 of 2024)
  • Vision Scientific & Engineering Limited v Makerere University (Applications No. 26 and 27 of 2022)
  • Samanga Elcomplus JV v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited
  • Kasokoso Services Limited v Jinja School of Nursing and Midwifery (Application No. 17 of 2021)
  • Raxio Data Centre SMC Ltd v Bank of Uganda (Application No. 21 of 2024)
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (High Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Yaweh Technical Services Limited v Soroti District Local Government 2024 UGPPDPAAT 46 (18 December 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.