Download

Uganda Judgment

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Kansiime v Hoima District Local Government (Application No. 8 of 2022) [2022] UGPPDPAAT 8 (28 March 2022)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal refused to approve the withdrawal of the application because the purported compromise between the applicant and the respondent was unlawful. The Accounting Officer had no authority to issue a new decision while an appeal was pending and a suspension order was in place, as per Section 89(11)(a) of the PPDA Act. Furthermore, the Accounting Officer was functus officio after the initial administrative review decision, and the Contracts Committee could not lawfully make a new award without a re-evaluation by the Evaluation Committee. Since the withdrawal was premised on an unlawful compromise, the Tribunal denied approval for withdrawal and struck out the application 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

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application Withdrawal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant sought to withdraw the application after a new administrative review committee recommended that the contract be awarded to him, contingent upon withdrawal of a related High Court case. Both the applicant and the respondent's Chief Administrative Officer confirmed their agreement with this new decision and supported the withdrawal request.
Respondent
The respondent, through its Chief Administrative Officer, supported the withdrawal, referencing the new administrative review committee's recommendation and the applicant's willingness to withdraw the High Court case as the basis for the compromise.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Regulation 16/3 of the PPDA (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016

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

  2. 02

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

    It is unlawful for an 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.

  4. 04

    PPDA Act and procurement best practices

    A Contracts Committee cannot make a new award decision without a re-evaluation by the Evaluation Committee.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal refused to approve the withdrawal of the application because the purported compromise between the applicant and the respondent was unlawful. The Accounting Officer had no authority to issue a new decision while an appeal was pending and a suspension order was in place, as per Section 89(11)(a) of the PPDA Act. Furthermore, the Accounting Officer was functus officio after the initial administrative review decision, and the Contracts Committee could not lawfully make a new award without a re-evaluation by the Evaluation Committee. Since the withdrawal was premised on an unlawful compromise, the Tribunal denied approval for withdrawal and struck out the application with no order as to costs.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal emphasized that procedural safeguards in procurement disputes must be strictly observed to maintain the integrity of the process.
  • Unlawful compromises undermine the statutory framework governing public procurement and disposal of public assets.

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 8

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

APPLICATION NO.8 OF 2022

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

VS.

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

BEFORE: FRANCIS GIMARA S. C. CHAIRPERSON; NELSON NERIMA; THOMAS BROOKES ISANGA: GEOFREY 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 landing site to Tibalverinda 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 same was attached.

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 the Contract Committee 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.

Ruling of the Tribunal in Application No. 8 of 2022

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 illegal for the Regulation 16/3 of the PPDA (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016/ 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 28<sup>th</sup> day of March 2022.

FRANCIS GIMARA S. C. CHAIRPERSON

NELSON NERIMA MEMBER

GEOFFREY NUWAGIRA KAKIRA MEMBER

THOMAS BROOKES ISANGA MEMBER

Ruling of the Tribunal in Application No. 8 of 2022

PAUL KALUMBA MEMBER

$\overline{a}$

Mid CHARITY KYARISIIMA

MEMBER

$\ddot{\phantom{a}}$ PATRICIA K. ASIIMWE

MEMBER

Ruling of the Tribunal in Application No. 8 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.

Regulation 16/3 of the PPDA (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 89(11)(a) of the PPDA Act 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.