Uganda Case Law

Mbarara City Truck Owners , Drivers and Loaders Cooperative Limited v Mbarara City Coucil (Application 9 of 2025)

Mbarara City Truck Owners , Drivers and Loaders Cooperative Limited v Mbarara City Coucil (Application 9 of 2025) [2025] UGPPDPAAT 11 (28 March 2025)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application 9 of 2025

Judges

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's administrative review application was properly before it, as the Accounting Officer failed to respond within the statutory period and did not provide guidance on payment of review fees. The Tribunal held that the Evaluation Committee was not bound by the Accounting Officer's observations regarding bid compliance, but only by the corrective measure to re-evaluate the bids. Upon review, the Tribunal determined that both the applicant and the best-evaluated bidder failed to provide proof that they were formed by truck owners and drivers within the lorry pa…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Bid Evaluation
• Administrative Review
• Contract Award
• Procurement Regulations

Quality Inspection Services Inc. Japan v Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) and 2 Others

Quality Inspection Services Inc. Japan v Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) and 2 Others (Civil Appeal 37 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCD 157 (4 October 2024)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal 37 of 2024

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The High Court allowed a procurement appeal, finding the tribunal erred in law by upholding awards made without a proper evaluation report and minutes.

• Public Procurement
• Bid Evaluation
• Contract Award
• Administrative Review
• Procurement Regulations
• Public-procurement

CRJE (East Africa) Limited v National Council for Higher Education (Application 27 of 2024)

CRJE (East Africa) Limited v National Council for Higher Education (Application 27 of 2024) [2024] UGPPDPAAT 30 (20 June 2024)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application 27 of 2024

Judges

Gimara SC, Chairperson, Nerima, Panel Member, Isanga, Kakira, Kalumba, Kyarisiima

The Tribunal found that the Contracts Committee of the Respondent unlawfully convened itself and revoked the Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder without a proper request from the Procurement and Disposal Unit, contrary to the requirements of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and its Regulations. The Tribunal further held that the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority acted outside its statutory mandate by conducting an investigation not grounded in an ongoing audit as required by section 7(j) of the Act. The recommendations of the Authority were advisor…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Bid Cancellation
• Administrative Review
• Statutory Mandate
• Procurement Regulations

Winaz Commercial Investment Limited v Masindi District Local Government (Application 26 of 2024)

Winaz Commercial Investment Limited v Masindi District Local Government (Application 26 of 2024) [2024] UGPPDPAAT 20 (10 June 2024)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application 26 of 2024

Judges

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

The Tribunal found the review complaint was timely, set aside the dismissal for non-payment of fees, and held the procurement invalid because the award was made after bid expiry.

• Public Procurement
• Bid Validity
• Administrative Review
• Contract Award
• Procurement Regulations
• Public-procurement

Semanga Solutions Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application 25 of 2023)

Semanga Solutions Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application 25 of 2023) [2023] UGPPDPAAT 27 (13 November 2023)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application 25 of 2023

Judges

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

The Tribunal found that Green Power International Limited and Green Power International referred to the same legal entity, and the omission of 'Limited' was a non-fatal misnomer. However, the bid of Green Power International Limited was not substantially compliant with the requirements of the bidding document, as it failed to demonstrate the required general experience over five years with activity in at least nine months of each year, and did not provide all necessary documentation for specific experience. The Tribunal held that the respondent erred in seeking clarification for a material de…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Bid Evaluation
• Contract Award Challenge
• Procurement Regulations

Hub Insurance Brokers Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 8 of 2023)

Hub Insurance Brokers Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 8 of 2023) [2023] UGPPDPAAT 9 (30 March 2023)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application No. 8 of 2023

Judges

Nerima, Panel Member, Gimara SC, Chairperson, Isanga, Ag. Chairperson, Kakira, Kyarisiima, Kalumba

The Tribunal upheld the procurement challenge in part, setting aside the Accounting Officer’s late review decision as a nullity but dismissing the application overall.

• Public Procurement
• Bid Evaluation
• Administrative Review
• Procurement Regulations
• Public-procurement
• Administrative-review

Seyani Brothers and Company (U) Limited V Enterprise Uganda (Application No. 19 of 2021)

Seyani Brothers and Company (U) Limited V Enterprise Uganda (Application No. 19 of 2021) [2021] UGPPDPAAT 20 (14 October 2021)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Application No. 19 of 2021

Judges

Nerima, Panel Member, Gimara SC, Chairperson, Isanga, Ag. Chairperson, Kakira, Kalumba

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's administrative review application was filed within the statutory period, as the ten working days commenced from the date the Applicant became aware of the evaluation results, not from the pre-bid meeting. The Tribunal held that the margin of preference was a mandatory requirement under both the law and the bidding documents, and could not be waived or amended by pre-bid meeting minutes without a formal addendum approved by the contracts committee. The Respondent's failure to apply the margin of preference during bid evaluation was ultra vires and contra…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Bid Evaluation
• Margin Of Preference
• Administrative Review
• Procurement Regulations