Share
Kansiime v Hoima District Local Government (Application No. 11 of 2022) [2022] UGPPDPAAT 11 (29 March 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] UGPPDPAAT 11
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
- Panel
- Isanga, Ag. Chairperson, Kakira, Panel Member, Kalumba, Asiimwe
- Case number
- Application No. 11 of 2022
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
- Panel
- Isanga, Ag. Chairperson, Kakira, Panel Member, Kalumba, Asiimwe
- Case number
- Application No. 11 of 2022
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
ApplicantHoima District Local Government
Respondent Counsel: Byamungu (Chief Administrative Officer/Accounting Officer)03
Procedural history
Posture
Administrative Review Application / Ruling on Withdrawal Request
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Tribunal should approve the withdrawal of the application for administrative review.
- 02
Whether the withdrawal is premised on a lawful compromise under the PPDA Act and Regulations.
- 03
Whether the Chief Administrative Officer/Accounting Officer had authority to issue a new decision during a pending appeal and suspension order.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Judgment
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
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.