Download

Uganda Judgment

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Kansiime v Hoima District Local Government (Application No. 11 of 2022) [2022] UGPPDPAAT 11 (29 March 2022)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal denied approval for withdrawal of the application because the withdrawal was based on an unlawful compromise. The Chief Administrative Officer/Accounting Officer acted without authority by issuing a new decision while an appeal and suspension order were pending, contravening Section 89(11)(a) of the PPDA Act. Furthermore, the officer was functus officio, having already made an administrative review decision, and the Contracts Committee could not make a new award without a proper re-evaluation. As the applicant was unwilling to proceed and the withdrawal was not legally permissible, the application was struck out with no order as to costs.

Court disposition

application struck out; withdrawal denied

Orders

  • Approval to withdraw the application is denied.
  • The application is struck out with no order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Kansiime David

Applicant

Hoima District Local Government

Respondent Counsel: Byamungu (Chief Administrative Officer/Accounting Officer)

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Administrative Review Application / Ruling on Withdrawal Request

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant sought to withdraw the application for administrative review, citing that another committee had reviewed and upheld his administrative review application, recommending the contract be awarded to him. The applicant and the Chief Administrative Officer confirmed their agreement with the new decision and requested withdrawal.
Respondent
The respondent, through the Chief Administrative Officer, communicated that the Contracts Committee should reconsider its earlier decision and award the contract to the applicant, as the previous best evaluated bidder lacked bid security. The respondent supported the withdrawal based on the new administrative review outcome.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    PPDA (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016, Regulation 16(3)

    A withdrawal of an application before the Tribunal requires approval under Regulation 16(3) of the PPDA (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016.

  2. 02

    PPDA Act, Section 89(11)(a) as amended by Act 15 of 2021

    It is unlawful for the Accounting Officer to issue a new decision when there is a pending appeal and a subsisting suspension order.

  3. 03

    Doctrine of functus officio

    An administrative officer is functus officio after making an administrative review decision and cannot revisit the matter.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal denied approval for withdrawal of the application because the withdrawal was based on an unlawful compromise. The Chief Administrative Officer/Accounting Officer acted without authority by issuing a new decision while an appeal and suspension order were pending, contravening Section 89(11)(a) of the PPDA Act. Furthermore, the officer was functus officio, having already made an administrative review decision, and the Contracts Committee could not make a new award without a proper re-evaluation. As the applicant was unwilling to proceed and the withdrawal was not legally permissible, the application was struck out with no order as to costs.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in procurement disputes.
  • Parties must not circumvent the Tribunal's authority through unlawful compromises or parallel administrative actions.

Court disposition

application struck out; withdrawal denied

  • Approval to withdraw the application is denied.
  • The application is struck out with no order as to 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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Judgment

[2022] UGPPDPAAT 11

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC ASSETS APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT KAMPALA

APPLICATION NO.11 OF 2022

KANSIIME DAVID===========================APPLICANT

VS.

HOIMA DISTRICT LOCAL GOVERNMENT=========== RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN RESPECT OF THE TENDER FOR RUNGA MARKET; PROCUREMENT REFERENCE NUMBER HOIM509/SVCS/2021-22/00001.

BEFORE: FRANCIS GIMARA S. C. CHAIRPERSON; NELSON NERIMA; THOMAS BROOKES ISANGA; GEOFFREY NUWAGIRA KAKIRA: PAUL KALUMBA; CHARITY KYARISIIMA; AND PATRICIA K. ASIIMWE, MEMBERS.

RULING

The Applicant filed this Application on 11<sup>th</sup> March 2022 to challenge the Respondent's award of a tender for Runga market to Tibalyerinda John. The Tribunal issued a suspension order of the procurement on 14<sup>th</sup> March 2022 by email to the Accounting Officer of the Respondent.

On 25<sup>th</sup> March 2022 the Applicant lodged a notice of withdrawal of the Application. The reason stated for withdrawal is that another committee reviewed and upheld the administrative review application under a communication reference $CR/156/2$ .

The letter CR/156/2 is a communication from the Respondent Chief Administrative Officer to the Applicant dated 14<sup>th</sup> March 2022. The Chief Administrative Officer states that another administrative review committee had recommended that the Contracts Committee review its earlier decision and consider awarding the contract to Mr. Kansiime David. That there was no best evaluated bidder for the revenue source because the bid from Mr. Tibalyerinda John had no bid security. That the Contracts Committee

Ruling of the Tribunal in Application No. 11 of 2022

should review its decision and consider awarding the contract to Mr. Kansiime David pending negotiations with the Entity for him to withdraw the Court case from the High Court in Masindi.

Mr. Kansiime the Applicant and Mr. Byamungu the Chief Administrative Officer/ Accounting Officer of the Respondent have confirmed that they stand by the new decision and the prayer to withdraw the Application.

Under Regulation 16(3) of the PPDA (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016, a withdrawal requires approval of the Tribunal.

In the instant case, we are not prepared to approve the withdrawal because it is premised on an unlawful compromise. First, it was unlawful for the Chief Administrative Officer/ Accounting Officer to issue a new decision when there was a pending appeal to this Tribunal and a subsisting suspension order. See Section 89 (11) (a) of the PPDA Act as amended by the Act of $15$ of $2021$ .

Secondly, the Chief Administrative Officer/ Accounting Officer was functus officio, having made an administrative review decision on 3<sup>rd</sup> March 2022.

Thirdly, the Contracts Committee cannot make a new award decision in the absence of a re-evaluation by the Evaluation Committee.

Since the Applicant is not willing to proceed with the Application and the purported withdrawal is based on an unlawful compromise, approval to withdraw the Application is denied. The application is struck out with no order as to costs.

Dated this 29<sup>th</sup> day of March 2022.

FRANCIS GIMARA S. C. CHAIRPERSON

NELSON NERIMA MEMBER

Ruling of the Tribunal in Application No. 11 of 2022

THOMAS BROOKES ISANGA MEMBER

PAUL KALUMBA MEMBER

GEOFFREY NUWAGIRA KAKIRA MEMBER

CHARITY KYARISIIMA MEMBER

$\cdots$ PATRICIA K. ASIIMWE MEMBER

Ruling of the Tribunal in Application No. 11 of 2022

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

PPDA (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016, Regulation 16(3)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

PPDA Act, Section 89(11)(a) as amended by Act 15 of 2021

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.