Wakilii

Yoya Technologies Limited and Others v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No 30 of 2025 Application No 31 of 2025)

Tribunal · [2025] UGPPDPAAT 44 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated applications for review of procurement decisions before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application No. 31 struck out as time-barred; Application No. 30 allowed in part; matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation of all proposals within 20 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 struck out Application No. 31 by Aisino Corporation as time-barred, finding the administrative review complaint was filed outside the statutory ten working days. The Tribunal allowed Application No. 30 in part, holding that the Respondent erroneously interpreted the requirement for a joint power of attorney by elevating form over substance. Where each member of a joint venture issues separate powers of attorney in favour of the same signatory, this achieves substantial compliance with the requirement for collective authorisation. The Tribunal set aside the evaluation decision and ordered re-evaluation of all proposals.

Outcome

Application No. 31 struck out as time-barred; Application No. 30 allowed in part; matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation of all proposals within 20 working days

Facts

Uganda Revenue Authority initiated a procurement for an electronic tax and revenue administration system. Six bidders submitted proposals. Following technical evaluation, URA displayed a notice stating that Yoya Technologies JV was non-compliant for failing to submit a joint power of attorney executed by all joint venture partners, and that Aisino Corporation was non-compliant for failing to explicitly commit to transferring full ownership of the solution's source code. Yoya Technologies JV filed an administrative review on September 2, 2025, which was dismissed on September 10, 2025. Aisino Corporation requested a debrief on August 26, 2025, received written debrief on August 28, 2025, and physical debrief on September 3, 2025. Aisino filed an administrative review dated September 8, 2025, received by URA on September 11, 2025, which was dismissed as time-barred on September 15, 2025. Both applicants then filed applications before the Tribunal, which were consolidated.

Issues

  1. Whether Application No. 31 is competent before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred when it disqualified the bid of Aisino Corporation for non-compliance with the requirement of explicitly committing to transferring full ownership of the solution's source code, base framework, and any associated documentation of the developed solution?
  3. Whether Criterion No. 3.2 (v) in the Request for Proposals Document requiring a Joint Power of Attorney is valid?
  4. Whether the Respondent erroneously interpreted the requirement for a joint power of attorney in Criterion 3.2 (v) of the evaluation criteria?
  5. Whether the Respondent erred when it did not seek clarification or submission of additional documentation regarding the power of attorney submitted by Yoya Technologies Ltd, Eviden Information Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd, and Percent Technology Group Co. Ltd Joint Venture?
  6. Whether the Respondent erred when it disqualified the bid of Yoya Technologies Ltd, Eviden Information Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd and Percent Technology Group Co. Ltd Joint Venture for non-compliance with the requirement of a Joint Power of Attorney?

Orders

  • Application No. 31 of 2025 is struck out.
  • Application No. 30 of 2025 is allowed in part.
  • The Notice Following Technical Evaluation for Consultancy Services, dated August 25, 2025, is set aside.
  • The Respondent is ordered to re-evaluate all the proposals in a manner not inconsistent with this decision, the request for proposals, and the law.
  • The re-evaluation shall be conducted within 20 working days from the date of this decision.
  • The Respondent shall refund the administrative review fees paid by Yoya Technologies Ltd, Eviden Information Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd and Percent Technology Group Co. Ltd Joint Venture.
  • The Tribunal's Suspension Orders dated September 17, 2025, and September 19, 2025, are vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Time Limits for Administrative Review — Date of Awareness of Circumstances Giving Rise to Complaint
A bidder becomes aware of the circumstances giving rise to a complaint on the date when the procuring entity issues a notice explicitly stating the reason for disqualification, not on the date of a subsequent debrief that merely expounds on the reason already communicated. The ten working days for filing an administrative review complaint commence from the date of the notice, not from the date of the debrief.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Jurisdiction of Appeals Tribunal — Competence of Application
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal cannot exercise jurisdiction over matters that have not been properly brought before it in accordance with established legal procedures. Where an administrative review complaint is filed outside the statutory time limit, the Accounting Officer's jurisdiction is extinguished, and the Tribunal cannot entertain an application arising from such a time-barred complaint.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Evaluation Criteria — Validity of Amendments to Standard Documents
A procuring entity is empowered under regulation 34(4) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Procurement of Consultancy Services) Regulations, 2023, to effect necessary changes to the instructions to consultants by an entry in the data sheet. The insertion of a requirement for a joint power of attorney executed by all partners of a joint venture is a valid and necessary change to cater for situations where the bidder comprises joint venture partners.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Evaluation — Substance Over Form — Joint Power of Attorney
Where each partner of a joint venture issues a separate power of attorney in favour of the same signatory, the substance of collective authorisation and joint and several liability is achieved. An evaluation committee that rigidly insists on the form of execution while disregarding the substance of compliance adopts an unduly mechanical and restrictive approach that elevates form over substance and runs contrary to the principles of fairness, equity, proportionality, and value for money that underpin public procurement. Such a submission should be treated as substantially compliant.
Statutory Interpretation — Interpretation Act — Prescribed Forms — Deviation Not Fatal Where Substance Preserved
Section 43 of the Interpretation Act provides that where a form is prescribed by statute, a document shall not be void by reason of deviation from that form, so long as the substance is preserved and no party is misled. Non-conformity with a particular form does not render a document void where the substance rather than the form is considered.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Clarifications — Distinction Between Missing Documents and Substitution of Documents
An evaluation committee may request clarification or submission of a missing eligibility document. However, where a bidder has submitted a document but in a form different from that prescribed, requesting the bidder to submit a different document in lieu of the document already submitted amounts to substitution of a document, not clarification or submission of a missing document. Such substitution is not permissible.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Evaluation Committee — Independence and Fettering of Discretion
An evaluation committee fetters its statutory discretion when it decides that guidance provided by another officer will be final and binding on the committee. Subject to the provisions of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, the evaluation committee is required to act independently regarding its functions and powers. The committee may seek guidance on any matter, but it must ultimately make the decision itself.

Legislation cited (26)

Cases cited (9)

  • Krystal Concepts Ltd v Uganda Communications Commission (Application No. 21 of 2025)
  • Ttumuka General Auctioneers Ltd v Pader District Local Government (Application No. 25 of 2025)
  • Rural Digital Media Ltd v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (Application No. 29 of 2025)
  • Kasokoso Services Limited v Jinja School of Nursing & Midwifery (Application No. 13 of 2021)
  • Samanga Elcomplus JV v PPDA & Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Application No. 4 of 2021)
  • Gibb (Pty) Limited, in Joint Venture with Acmirs Consulting Limited v Ministry of Works and Transport & Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) Project (Application No. 16 of 2025)
  • Gold Star Insurance Company Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 04 of 2024)
  • Muga Services Limited v Ggofa Investments Limited & 2 Ors (Application No. 35 of 2024)
  • Arua Municipal Council v Arua United Transporters' SACCO (High Court at Arua Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Yoya Technologies Limited and Others v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No 30 of 2025 Application No 31 of 2025) 2025 UGPPDPAAT 44 (3 October 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.