Share
Kansiime v Hoima District Local Government (Application No. 8 of 2022) [2022] UGPPDPAAT 8 (28 March 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] UGPPDPAAT 8
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
- Panel
- Nerima, Panel Member, Gimara SC, Chairperson, Isanga, Ag. Chairperson, Kakira, Kalumba, Asiimwe
- Case number
- Application No. 8 of 2022
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
- Panel
- Nerima, Panel Member, Gimara SC, Chairperson, Isanga, Ag. Chairperson, Kakira, Kalumba, Asiimwe
- Case number
- Application No. 8 of 2022
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
ApplicantHoima District Local Government
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application Withdrawal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Tribunal should approve the applicant's request to withdraw the application based on the circumstances presented.
- 02
Whether the compromise leading to the withdrawal was lawful under the PPDA Act and Regulations.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
- 03
Doctrine of functus officio
An administrative officer is functus officio after making an administrative review decision and cannot revisit the matter.
- 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.
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.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
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.