Uganda Case Law

Gibb (PTY) Limited in Joint Venture with Acmirs consulting Limited v Ministry of Works and Transport and Another (Application No. 16 of 2025)

Gibb (PTY) Limited in Joint Venture with Acmirs consulting Limited v Ministry of Works and Transport and Another (Application No. 16 of 2025) [2025] UGPPDPAAT 19 (17 July 2025)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application No. 16 of 2025

Judges

Gimara SC, Chairperson, Nerima, Panel Member, Nuwagira, Kalumba, Cyrus Titus Aomu, Penal Member

The Tribunal found that the Respondents erred in law by disqualifying the Applicant's bid for non-submission of registered joint venture powers of attorney, as such eligibility documents, if valid at the bid submission deadline, should have been requested through clarification in accordance with the procurement regulations. The Tribunal also determined that there was no mandatory requirement in the bidding documents for submission of tax clearance certificates at the time of bid submission; eligibility declarations in the technical proposal sufficed. The Respondents' failure to apply the corr…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement Review
• Bid Evaluation Criteria
• Eligibility Documents
• Clarification Procedure

Buu -Lepu Foundation Limited v Lira City Council (Application 15 of 2025)

Buu -Lepu Foundation Limited v Lira City Council (Application 15 of 2025) [2025] UGPPDPAAT 16 (14 July 2025)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application 15 of 2025

Judges

Gimara SC, Chairperson, Nerima, Panel Member, Nuwagira, Kalumba, Kyarisiima, Kayemba, cyrus Titus Aomu, penal member

The Tribunal found that the Respondent's Accounting Officer failed to make and communicate a decision within the statutory ten-day period following receipt of the Applicant's administrative review complaint. Under section 106(8) and 115(2)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, the Applicant was required to file its application within ten days from the expiry of the period for the Accounting Officer to make a decision. The Tribunal determined that the last permissible day for filing was June 16, 2025, as June 15, 2025, fell on a Sunday. The Applicant filed its applica…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement Review
• Bid Evaluation Criteria
• Administrative Timelines
• Access To Information
• Standstill Period
• Natural Justice

UAP Old Mutual Insurance (U) Limited v National Medical Stores (Application 10 of 2025)

UAP Old Mutual Insurance (U) Limited v National Medical Stores (Application 10 of 2025) [2025] UGPPDPAAT 13 (15 April 2025)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application 10 of 2025

Judges

Gimara SC, Chairperson, Nerima, Panel Member, Nuwagira, Kalumba, Kyarisiima, Kayemba, cyrus Titus Aomu, penal member

The Tribunal set aside an insurance award to Sanlam and ordered re-evaluation, holding that regulatory guidance could not amend the tender’s stated vehicle classification.

• Public Procurement Review
• Bid Evaluation Criteria
• Insurance Regulatory Compliance
• Contract Award Challenge
• Public-procurement-review
• Bid-evaluation-criteria

Emtec Technical Services Limited v Uganda High court Commission Dare -es-Salaam, Tanzania (Application 5 of 2025)

Emtec Technical Services Limited v Uganda High court Commission Dare -es-Salaam, Tanzania (Application 5 of 2025) [2025] UGPPDPAAT 8 (13 March 2025)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application 5 of 2025

Judges

Gimara SC, Chairperson, Nerima, Panel Member, Nuwagira, Kalumba, Kyarisiima, Kayemba, cyrus Titus Aomu, penal member

The Tribunal set aside a procurement disqualification, holding that the bidder’s foreign-contractor letter satisfied the bidding document and that clarification should have been sought.

• Public Procurement Review
• Bid Evaluation Criteria
• Administrative Review
• Contract Award Challenge
• Public-procurement
• Bid-evaluation

Pynet Technologies SMC Limited v Ministry of Lands ,Housing and Urban Development (Application 34 of 2024)

Pynet Technologies SMC Limited v Ministry of Lands ,Housing and Urban Development (Application 34 of 2024) [2024] UGPPDPAAT 36 (18 July 2024)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application 34 of 2024

Judges

Nerima, Panel Member, Nuwagira, Kalumba, Kyarisiima, Kayemba

The Tribunal found that while the Applicant's bid was nonresponsive to the technical specifications relating to Digital Cameras, the Evaluation Committee erred in its assessment of other technical criteria, including the dual monitor stands, 30KVA UPS, and QSFP ports. The Committee failed to exercise its discretion to seek clarification for non-material omissions and did not apply the same level of scrutiny to all bidders, resulting in unequal treatment. The evaluation process did not adhere to the cardinal principles of fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination as required by law. Conse…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement Review
• Bid Evaluation Criteria
• Fairness And Transparency
• Technical Specifications
• Remedies In Procurement
• Non Discrimination

Mbarara City Truck , Owners, Drivers and Loaders Cooperative Society Limited v Mbarara City Council (Application 19 of 2024)

Mbarara City Truck , Owners, Drivers and Loaders Cooperative Society Limited v Mbarara City Council (Application 19 of 2024) [2024] UGPPDPAAT 26 (2 May 2024)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application 19 of 2024

Judges

Gimara SC, Chairperson, Nerima, Panel Member, Isanga, Nuwagira, Kalumba, Kyarisiima, Kayemba

The Tribunal found that the application was competent despite the lack of statutory notice, as such omission does not vitiate jurisdiction. The Accounting Officer of the Respondent erred by failing to guide the Applicant on administrative review fees and by not communicating a decision within the statutory timeline, breaching both statutory and regulatory duties. The evaluation committee of the Respondent erred by disqualifying the Applicant for non-submission of eligibility documents without seeking clarification, as required by procurement regulations. Furthermore, the disqualification of t…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement Review
• Bid Evaluation Criteria
• Administrative Compliance
• Remedies For Procedural Error

Raxio Data Centre SMC Limited v Bank of Uganda (Application 21 of 2024)

Raxio Data Centre SMC Limited v Bank of Uganda (Application 21 of 2024) [2024] UGPPDPAAT 25 (6 April 2024)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application 21 of 2024

Judges

Gimara SC, Chairperson, Nerima, Panel Member, Nuwagira, Kalumba, Kyarisiima, Kayemba

The Tribunal found that the procurement for the Business Resumption Data Centre (BRDC) relocation was ancillary to the Bank of Uganda's core functions and thus subject to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The Tribunal held that the Applicant's administrative review complaint was not decided within the statutory period, rendering the Accounting Officer's decision null and void. However, the Application to the Tribunal was filed outside the statutory timeline prescribed by the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that statutory timelines are matters of substantive law and cannot…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement Review
• Procurement Timelines
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal
• Ancillary Services In Public Entities
• Bid Evaluation Criteria

Juan Carlos Surace Limited v Masindi District Local Government (Application 12 of 2024)

Juan Carlos Surace Limited v Masindi District Local Government (Application 12 of 2024) [2024] UGPPDPAAT 16 (18 March 2024)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application 12 of 2024

Judges

Gimara SC, Chairperson, Nerima, Panel Member, Isanga, Nuwagira, Kalumba, Kyarisiima, Kayemba

The Tribunal allowed a procurement review, holding that a valid Tax Clearance Certificate sent electronically before deadline was sufficient and that novel rejection grounds were unlawful.

• Public Procurement Review
• Bid Evaluation Criteria
• Eligibility Documents
• Electronic Submission Of Documents
• Public-procurement-review
• Bid-evaluation

K-solutions Limited v Ministry of Water and Environment (Application 8 of 2024)

K-solutions Limited v Ministry of Water and Environment (Application 8 of 2024) [2024] UGPPDPAAT 9 (12 February 2024)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application 8 of 2024

Judges

Gimara SC, Chairperson, Nerima, Panel Member, Isanga, Nuwagira, Kalumba, Kayemba

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had locus standi to file the application directly before the Tribunal due to the prior involvement of the Accounting Officer and the reasonable belief of lack of impartiality. However, upon reviewing the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Tribunal determined that only one contract met the criteria of similarity in nature and value, while the other contracts either lacked evidence or did not meet the value threshold. The requirement was for at least three similar contracts with documentary evidence, which the Applicant failed to satisfy. The Tribunal…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement Review
• Bid Evaluation Criteria
• Locus Standi
• Contract Award Challenge

Mbarara City United Bikadde Market Vendors Association v Mbarara City Council (Application 23 of 2023)

Mbarara City United Bikadde Market Vendors Association v Mbarara City Council (Application 23 of 2023) [2023] UGPPDPAAT 26 (6 November 2023)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application 23 of 2023

Judges

Nerima, Panel Member, Isanga, Nuwagira, Kalumba, Kyarisiima, Kayemba

The Tribunal found that the Respondent breached statutory obligations by failing to communicate its administrative review decision within the required 10-day period after receiving the Applicant's complaint. The Respondent also erred by ignoring both the Government policy and the explicit evaluation criterion in the bidding document that required priority to be given to vendors' co-operatives and associations for markets with reserve prices above UGX 4,000,000. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to demonstrate that it assessed whether bid prices were realistic, as required by the evaluation c…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement Review
• Bid Evaluation Criteria
• Government Policy Application
• Administrative Timelines
• Market Management Tendering