Share
Auto Terminal Japan Limited Pal Auto Garage Limited ,Africa Automotive Analysis Limited JV v Uganda National Bureau of Standards and Another (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2024) [2024] UGPPDPAAT 12 (1 March 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] UGPPDPAAT 12
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
- Panel
- Nerima, Panel Member, Isanga, Nuwagira, Kalumba, Kyarisiima, Kayemba
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2024
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
- Panel
- Nerima, Panel Member, Isanga, Nuwagira, Kalumba, Kyarisiima, Kayemba
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2024
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that the interrogatories sought by the applicant were not necessary for the fair disposal of the main application, as the Tribunal itself has the power to elicit relevant evidence from the parties and their witnesses during the hearing. Furthermore, permitting interrogatories would require an adjournment to allow respondents time to answer, which would compromise the strict statutory timeline of 15 working days for determination of the main application. The Tribunal prioritised expeditious and fair resolution in accordance with its procedural regulations and statutory obligations, and therefore denied the application for interrogatories.
Court disposition
application denied
Orders
- Application to deliver interrogatories to the respondents is denied.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Auto Terminal Japan Limited, Pal Auto Garage Ltd, Africa Automotive Analysis Ltd JV
Applicant Counsel: Mark KizzaUganda National Bureau of Standards
Respondent Counsel: Kakuru Luke, Doreen Nanvule, Hassan WalusimbiQuality Inspection Services Inc. Japan
Respondent Counsel: Olivia Kyarimpa Matovu, Martin Kakuru, Saad Seninde03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant should be granted leave to deliver interrogatories in writing to the respondents.
- 02
Whether the interrogatories are necessary for disposing of the suit fairly or for saving costs.
- 03
Whether allowing interrogatories would affect the statutory timeline for determination of the main application.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that delivering interrogatories to the respondents would extract material information and secure admissions relevant to the dispute, thereby saving expense and delay in the proceedings.
- Respondent
- The respondents argued that the interrogatories were unnecessary, as the Tribunal itself could elicit relevant evidence during the hearing, and that allowing interrogatories would require adjournment, jeopardizing the statutory timeline for decision-making.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Omar v Gordhanbhai & Another (1974) EA 518; Sebastian R. D'Souza & Others v Charles Clemente Ferrao (1959) EA 1000
Interrogatories may be permitted if necessary for disposing of the suit fairly or for saving costs.
- 02
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Tribunal (Procedure) Regulations
The Tribunal's overriding objective is to deal with applications expeditiously, fairly, and justly, with flexibility and minimal formality.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that the interrogatories sought by the applicant were not necessary for the fair disposal of the main application, as the Tribunal itself has the power to elicit relevant evidence from the parties and their witnesses during the hearing. Furthermore, permitting interrogatories would require an adjournment to allow respondents time to answer, which would compromise the strict statutory timeline of 15 working days for determination of the main application. The Tribunal prioritised expeditious and fair resolution in accordance with its procedural regulations and statutory obligations, and therefore denied the application for interrogatories.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal does not strictly observe the rules of evidence and seeks flexibility to the greatest extent possible.
- In the course of a hearing, the Tribunal may put questions to the parties and their witnesses to elicit further relevant evidence.
Court disposition
application denied
- Application to deliver interrogatories to the respondents is denied.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Source and reliance status
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC ASSETS APPEALS TRIBUNAL
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2024 (ARISING FROM APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2024- QUALITY INSPECTION SERVICES INC JAPAN VS. UGANDA NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS)
BETWEEN
AUTO TERMINAL JAPAN LIMITED, PAL AUTO GARAGE LTD, AFRICA AUTOMOTIVE ANALYSIS LTD JV::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
AND
1. UGANDA NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
2. QUALITY INSPECTION SERVICES INC. JAPAN::::::::::::::RESPONDENT
BEFORE: NELSON NERIMA; THOMAS BROOKES ISANGA; GEOFFREY NUWAGIRA KAKIRA; PAUL KALUMBA; CHARITY KYARISIIMA; AND KETO KAYEMBA, MEMBERS
Representation:
Mr. Mark Kizza for the Applicant
Mr. Kakuru Luke; Ms. Doreen Nanvule; and Mr. Hassan Walusimbi, and, counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent
Mrs Olivia Kyarimpa Matovu, Mr. Martin Kakuru and Mr. Saad Seninde for the $2^{nd}$ Respondent
RULING
The Applicant is one of the three Best Evaluated Bidders (namely: *Consortium of EAA Company Ltd and East Africa Auto Technical Testing;* Auto Terminal Japan Limited, Pal Auto Garage Ltd, Africa Automotive *Analysis Ltd JV; and Quality Inspection Services Inc Japan*) in the emergency procurement for the provision of pre-export verification of conformity to standards-service providers for used motor vehicles under procurement no. UNBS/NCONS/2023-2024/00052 by Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS).
The Applicant is the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent to Tribunal Application No. 09 of 2024 wherein *Quality Inspection Services Inc. Japan* challenges the tender award.
The Applicant seeks leave to deliver interrogatories in writing to the 1<sup>st</sup> and $2<sup>nd</sup>$ Respondents.
In the process of presenting Interrogatories, the party interrogating may put questions for the purpose of extracting from his opponent information material to the questions between them or for purposes of securing admissions as to those facts in order so that the expense and delay may be saved. See: Omar Vrs. Gordhanbhai& Another (1974) EA 518.
In deciding whether the order should be made, the Court is to be guided by whether the Interrogatories are necessary for disposing of the suit fairly; or for saving costs. See: Sebastian R. D'Souza & Others Vrs. Charles Clemente Ferrao (1959) EA 1000.
Therefore, in deciding whether an order for interrogatories should be made, the court is guided by first, whether the interrogatories are necessary for disposing of the suit fairly.
The overriding objective of the *Public Procurement and Disposal of Public* Assets (*Tribunal*) (*Procedure*) *Regulations* is to enable the Tribunal to deal with applications expeditiously, fairly and justly. The Tribunal tries to avoid unnecessary formality and seeks flexibility to the greatest extent possible. The Tribunal does not strictly observe the rules of evidence.
In the course of a hearing, the Tribunal may put questions to the parties and their witnesses in order to elicit further relevant evidence.
The Tribunal is able to ask the questions which the Applicant seeks to ask through interrogatories. The interrogatories in the instant case are therefore not necessary for disposing of the main Application fairly.
Secondly, allowing interrogatories will necessitate an adjournment of the main Application to enable the Respondents reasonable time to file answers by affidavit. Any adjournment will affect the strict statutory timeline of 15 working days within which the Tribunal is required to make a decision. The main Application was filed on February 15, 2024. The Tribunal must render a decision not later than March 15, 2024.
For the above reasons, the application to deliver interrogatories to the Respondents is denied.
Each party to bear its own costs.
Dated at Kampala this 1<sup>st</sup> day of March, 2024.
immer
NELSON NERIMA MEMBER
GEOFFREY NUWAGIRA KAKIRA MEMBER
THOMAS BRÖOKES ISANGA MEMBER
PAUL KALUMBA MEMBER
CHARITY KYARISIIMA MEMBER
KETO KAYEMBA MEMBER
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.