the acountant general vs public procurement appeals authority 2 others 2011 tzhccomd 2109 21 october 2011

the acountant general vs public procurement appeals authority 2 others 2011 tzhccomd 2109 21 october 2011

PPAA acted without jurisdiction as the 3rd Respondent's letters were requests for clarification, not complaints or disputes under the Public Procurement Act; PPAA's decision was issued beyond the statutory time limit; PPAA failed to issue a suspension order and did not consider the public interest and project status; the decision was unreasonable and irrational in the Wednesbury sense and must be quashed.

Citation
the acountant general vs public procurement appeals authority 2 others 2011 tzhccomd 2109 21 october 2011
Parties
Applicant: The Accountant General; 1st Respondent: Public Procurement Appeals Authority; 2nd Respondent: Attorney General; 3rd Respondent: Cool Care Services Limited
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
21 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Case (judicial Review) / Ruling on Application for Orders of Certiorari
Outcome
Application granted; decision of PPAA quashed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Ultra Vires, Procedural Impropriety, Tender Process, Locus Standi, Compensation, Suspension Orders
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Public Procurement Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Ultra Vires Procedural Impropriety Tender Process Locus Standi +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Accountant General

Applicant

Public Procurement Appeals Authority

1st Respondent

Attorney General

2nd Respondent

Cool Care Services Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Case (judicial Review) / Ruling on Application for Orders of Certiorari

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PPAA had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal without a complaint/dispute lodged by the 3rd Respondent
  2. 2 Whether PPAA acted ultra vires by issuing its decision beyond the statutory time limit
  3. 3 Whether PPAA failed to consider relevant matters and issued orders on irrelevant/ultra vires grounds

Ratio Decidendi

PPAA acted without jurisdiction as the 3rd Respondent's letters were requests for clarification, not complaints or disputes under the Public Procurement Act; PPAA's decision was issued beyond the statutory time limit; PPAA failed to issue a suspension order and did not consider the public interest and project status; the decision was unreasonable and irrational in the Wednesbury sense and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Application granted; decision of PPAA quashed.

Orders

  • Decision of Public Procurement Appeals Authority made on 22 March, 2011 quashed for being unreasonable and irrational.
  • No order as to costs.