[2025] UGPPDPAAT 1

### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC ASSETS APPEALS TRIBUNAL

### **REGISTRY APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2024**

### **BETWEEN**

CRJE (EAST AFRICA) LTD::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

### AND

# NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION:::::: RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN RESPECT OF THE PROCUREMENT BY NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION MAIN BUILDING OFFICES UNDER PROCUREMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/001

BEFORE: FRANCIS GIMARA S. C CHAIRPERSON; NELSON NERIMA; GEOFFREY NUWAGIRA KAKIRA, PAUL KALUMBA, CHARITY KYARISIIMA, KETO KAYEMB, AND ENG. CYRUS TITUS AOMU, MEMBERS.

Page 1 of 18

Decision for PAT Application 48 of 2024- CRJE (East Africa) Ltd Vs. National Council for Higher Education

### DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

#### $A.$ **BRIEF FACTS**

- On January 25, 2024, the National Council for Higher $1.$ Education (the Respondent) initiated a procurement for the construction of the National Council for Higher Education main Building offices under Procurement Reference Number NCHE/WRKS/23-24/001 using the open bidding method. - Upon the conclusion of the evaluation process, the Respondent $2.$ issued a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder on April 2, 2024, indicating that CRJE (East Africa) Ltd was the successful bidder at a contract price of **Uganda Shillings 123,089,038,802**. - On April 12, 2024, a whistleblower, Mr Mujuzi Alex, filed a 3. complaint with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority, alleging irregularities in the procurement process. On May 7, 2024 the Authority issued a report on the alleged irregularities in the impugned procurement process to the Respondent's Accounting Officer and recommended that the Respondent conducts a re-evaluation of the bids in accordance with the law. - $4.$ May 9, 2024, the Respondent communicated On the cancellation of the notice of the best-evaluated bidder issued on April 2, 2024. CRJE (East Africa) Ltd challenged the cancellation decision before the Respondent's Accounting Officer and later appealed to the Tribunal on May 29, 2024, to review the Respondent's decision. - 5. On June 20, 2024, the Tribunal rendered a decision in Application No. 27 of 2024. The Tribunal set aside the Respondent's decision that had cancelled notice of the bestevaluated bidder of April 2, 2024, and remitted the procurement matter back to the Respondent for appropriate action in accordance with the law and consistent with its decision.

### Page 2 of 18

- 6. In a bid to comply with the Tribunal's Decision, the Respondent sought clearance of the proposed Contract with the successful bidder, CRJE (East Africa) Ltd, from the Solicitor General for clearance. The Solicitor General declined to authorize the execution of the said contract for, inter alia, a lack of confirmation by the Secretary to the Treasury of the availability of funds for the entire contract sum. - In a letter dated August 1, 2024, the Respondent requested the 7. Secretary to the Treasury to confirm the availability of funds for the procurement. The Secretary to the Treasury confirmed the availability of funds on October 2, 2024. - On October 10, 2024, the Respondent initiated a fresh 8. procurement for the construction of the National Council for Higher Education Main Building Offices under Procurement Reference Number NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/001 using the open bidding method. - Twelve (12) prospective bidders bought the bidding documents 9. Procurement Reference Number: NCHE/WRKS/2024for 2025/001 from the Respondent including the Applicant. - The Applicant did not submit a bid for the tender under 10. Procurement Reference Number: NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/001 - Upon the conclusion of the evaluation process, the Respondent 11. issued a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder on November 21, 2024, indicating that China National Aero Technology International Engineering Corporation was the successful bidder at $\overline{a}$ contract price $\quad\text{of}\quad$ **Uganda** Shillings 22,897,160,207. - The Applicant filed the instant application directly before the 12. Tribunal on December 16, 2024, challenging the Respondent's

Page 3 of 18

decision to commence and continue with the tender under Procurement Reference Number: NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/001.

- The Application raised four issues for determination by the 13. Tribunal. The issues have been reframed as follows; - Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the $(i)$ *instant Application?* - Whether the Respondent is in contempt of the decision of the $(ii)$ PPDA Appeals Tribunal dated June 20, 2024, vide Application No. 27 of 2024? - Whether the Respondent erred in law when it declined to $(iii)$ execute a contract with the Applicant under Procurement Reference Number: NCHE/WRKS/23-24/001? - Whether the Respondent's Accounting Officer acted illegally $(iv)$ and unfairly towards the Applicant in readvertising the tender under Procurement Reference Number: NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/001? - *What remedies are available to the parties?* $(v)$

#### $B.$ THE ORAL HEARING

- $1.$ The Tribunal held a virtual hearing via the Zoom online platform on January 7, 2025. The appearances were as follows: - Kazibwe Achilles, Counsel for the Applicant. Liu Qiang, the $1)$ Applicant's Country Manager, and Mutebi Ivan Drake, the Applicant's Chief Quantity Surveyor, were also in attendance. - Ali Kankaka and Stella Buyambi as Counsel for the Respondent. $2)$ In attendance was *Irene Nassaka*, the Respondent's legal officer.

#### $\mathbb{C}$ . **SUBMISSIONS**

The parties highlighted their written submissions and made oral 1. submissions as follows:

Page 4 of 18

Decision for PAT Application 48 of 2024- CRJE (East Africa) Ltd Vs. National Council for Higher Education

# *Applicant*

- $\overline{1}$ . Counsel for the Applicant adopted its written submissions filed on December 23, 2024 and the rejoinder filed on January 7, 2025. - The Applicant contended that it has the requisite standing to $2.$ bring forth this application before the Tribunal pursuant to Section 91(1) (1) (b) of the PPDA Act as a person whose rights $\frac{1}{2}$ are adversely affected by a decision made by the Accounting Officer - That as a direct participant in the tender Procurement $3.$ Reference Number: NCHE/WRKS/23-24/001, the Applicant's interests are significantly affected by the outcome of the procurement decision made by the Respondent, particularly regarding the re-advertisement of a tender where the Respondent had declared the Applicant the Best Evaluated Bidder and winner of the tender. The Applicant relied on the authorities of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 1 (2020), 5th Edition, Vol. 1, *para 20)* to buttress its submissions on locus. - Regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the Applicant submitted 4. that the Tribunal holds the requisite jurisdiction to hear the Applicant's Application regarding Procurement Reference NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/0001. The Applicant relied on $R. v$ The Civil Aviation Authority, ex parte T. A. Travel [2002] 1 **WLR 1864**, to argue that any party who has participated in a procurement process possesses standing to challenge procurement decisions that may adversely affect them. - The Applicant averred that the instant Application is not an 5. abuse of process and does not seek to relitigate matters previously determined by the Tribunal in Application No. 27 of 2024. The Applicant further submitted that the Tribunal is not functus officio regarding the procurement process of the construction of the proposed NCHE main office building. The Page 5 of 18

Applicant cited the decision in *Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [1982] AC 529* to fortify its submissions on abuse of process.

- $6.$ The Applicant contended that its bid is still valid since bids remain valid until expressly withdrawn or until the procuring and disposing entity formally determines that no contract will be awarded. That the law does not include a provision where a bid automatically expires under circumstances akin to those presented by the Respondent in this matter. That the Respondent never requested the Applicant to renew its bid validity and that the Applicant extended its bid validity in a letter dated August 28, 2024, addressed to the Respondent. - The Applicant submitted that the Respondent's refusal to enter 7. a contract with the Applicant despite the confirmation of funds represents a clear disregard for contractual obligations and statutory requirements. That the refusal was an arbitrary act that undermines the integrity of the procurement process as enshrined in Ugandan law. - Regarding the effect of Miscellaneous Cause No. 121 of 2024 in 8. the High Court on the instant Application, the Applicant submitted that the cause before the High Court action seeks judicial review reliefs while the instant Application before the Tribunal seeks administrative review relief specific to the procurement process for the construction of the proposed NCHE main office building, in which the Applicant participated. That a judicial review application does not negate or limit a right to pursue administrative remedies simultaneously.

Decision for PAT Application 48 of 2024- CRJE (East Africa) Ltd Vs. National Council for Higher Education

- 9. The Applicant submitted that High Court's jurisdiction in matters of judicial review and the Tribunal's mandate concerning administrative review are distinct while relying on the authority in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 A. C. 115, to argue that parallel proceedings do not automatically result in the barring of one from adjudicating upon matters distinct to their jurisdiction or remit. - Regarding the validity of the purported contract between the 10. Respondent and China National Aero Technology International Engineering Corporation, the Applicant argued that no valid contract had been executed between the parties due to the absence of a duly signed contract as contemplated under Section 88B of the Act, the absence of duly signed Contracts Committee minutes and the lack of clearance by the Solicitor General pursuant to Article 119 (4) (b) of the Constitution. The Applicant relied on the decision in **Vallambrosa Rubber** Company Limited $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}}$ Chief Finance Officer $of$ the **Government of Ghana [1980] 1 WLR 411** to argue that failure to comply with mandatory statutory requirements taints any actions taken thereafter. - The Applicant submitted that the decision to re-advertise the 11. tender was procedurally improper and ultra vires the principles of fair administrative action, which require that decisions affecting rights be made based on valid, fair, and lawful The decision was characterized by a lack of considerations. transparency and insufficient notice to the Applicant and other stakeholders, constituting a breach of procedural fairness as required in the decision of the House of Lords in **Council of** Civil Service Unions v Ministry of Public Service (1985) AC 374. - That the Applicant was unjustly denied a legitimate expectation 12. of fair treatment as enshrined under Articles 28 (1), 42, 44 of the Constitution, subjecting the Applicant to potential financial loss without justification.

Page 7 of 18

- The Applicant concluded by submitting that the action taken by $13.$ the Respondent's Accounting Officer in re-advertising the tender for Procurement Reference No: NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/0001 was illegal, void of transparency, and devoid of sufficient justification. - 14. Counsel prayed that the Tribunal finds merit in the Application and grants the reliefs prayed for by the Applicant.

## **Respondent**

- The Respondent adopted its response filed on December 27 and $1.$ 30, 2024 and raised a preliminary objection that the instant application filed with the Tribunal was out of time and is therefore incompetent. The Respondent emphasised that Applicant first became aware of the publication of the tender on October 10, 2024, and that challenging the re-tender on December 17, 2024, was outside the prescribed statutory timelines. - The Respondent submitted that the Applicant's Application is $2.$ barred by law as the subject matter of the impugned Application is a subject of a previously instituted suit pending before the Civil Division of the High Court (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 268 of 2024, and Miscellaneous Applications 1250 of 2024 and 1251 of 2024 pending before Justice Baguma Emanuel) formerly filed in the Commercial Division of the High Court Vide High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 121 of 2024, High Court Miscellaneous Applications No. 2524 and 2526 of 2024 - CRJE (East Africa Limited) v National Council for Higher Education. - That the remedies being sought by the Applicant before this 3. Tribunal are in pari materia to the remedies sought in High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 268 of 2024 and that commencing multiple proceedings before different judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals seeking the same remedies is an abuse Page 8 of 18

of legal process and an illegality that cannot be sanctioned by the Tribunal.

- The Respondent also contended that the Tribunal lacked $4.$ jurisdiction to determine the instant application. That the subject of the Applicant's application falls squarely outside the purview of the jurisdiction $\quad\text{of}\quad$ the **PPDA** Tribunal $\overline{as}$ circumscribed by Sections 106 and 115 of the PPDA Act Cap 205. - That according to the Applicant's Application, the Applicant 5. seems to assume that the initial procurement process in which it had emerged as a successful bidder was/is still valid and that this Tribunal still has jurisdiction to address itself to that procurement. However, this assumption/illusion is legally untenable. - The Respondent contended that the Applicant is not a bidder 6. with respect to the current Procurement Reference NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/0001 and, therefore, does not qualify as an aggrieved bidder under Section 106 (1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, Cap 205. - 7. The Respondent submitted that Procurement Reference Number NCH6/2023-2024/001expiry of the bid validity period before a contract could be executed. - 8. That the Applicant admitted in its letter to the Respondent dated August 28, 2024, that the bid validity period for the Applicant's bid in procurement reference number NCHE/WRKS/2023-2024/001 had expired as of August 28, 2024, and that the Respondent replied to Applicant's said letter on September 23, 2024, confirming that indeed the bid validity period had expired.

Page 9 of 18 - That the Respondent duly returned the Applicant's bid security 9. upon the expiry of its bid and as such, the Applicant who did not submit a bid in the retendered procurement has no locus before the Tribunal. - 10. The Respondent contended that the Tribunal is *functus officio* in as far as any matter arising out of Application No. 27 of 2024 is concerned and that such matters cannot be revisited through a fresh application to the Tribunal. Further, that the Respondent had appealed the Tribunal decision in the High Court. - The Respondent submitted that the instant application is $11.$ without merit and should be dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

## $D.$ RESOLUTION BY THE TRIBUNAL Issue no. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this Application?

- The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Tribunal is a 1. creature of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, Cap 205, and its jurisdiction arises out of the instances listed in Section 115 (1)(a)-(c) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act cap 205. - The Tribunal must, therefore, inquire into the facts to determine $2.$ whether the Tribunal is seized or clothed with jurisdiction to interrogate the merits of the Application before it. - The Tribunal has persistently held that it is duty bound to inquire 3. into the existence of the facts to decide whether it has jurisdiction. This is because jurisdiction is a creature of statute and must be acquired before judgment is given. As such, the Tribunal must inquire about whether the Applicant has the locus to file an application before it and, secondly, whether the Tribunal is seized or clothed with jurisdiction to interrogate the merits of the Application before it. See Passionate Ventures SMS Uganda Limited v Bulambuli District Local Government, Application

Page 10 of 18

35 of 2023, K-Solutions Ltd Vs. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, Application No.16 of 2021, Beautiful **Engineering** $\&$ Equipment Ltd $v$ Uganda Electricitu Transmission Company Limited, Application No.15 of 2021 and in Abasamia Hwolerane Association Ltd v Jinja City Council Application No.18 of 2021

In Owners of Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd $4.$ (1989) KLR 1, Justice Nyarangi JA (as he then was) stated:

"...... A question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest" opportunity and the court seized of the matter is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it. Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, court has no power to make one more step. Where court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs tools in respect of a matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction"

- 5. After carefully perusing the pleadings in the instant application and during the oral hearing, it was revealed that Application No. 27 of 2024, the Tribunal determined on June 20, 2024, regarding the tender for construction of the National Council for Higher Education main building offices under Procurement Reference Number: NCHE/WRKS/23-24/001, was the subject of an Appeal filed before the High Court by the Respondent on July 25, 2024 and that the appeal was pending determination. - It was further revealed that the Applicant had filed a Judicial 6. Review Application vide High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 121 of 2024 together with Miscellaneous Applications No. 2524 of 2024 and 2526 of 2024 before the Commercial Division against the National Council for Higher Education on November 22, 2024, challenging the tender process commenced under Procurement Reference Number: NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/001. The matter was transferred to the Civil Division and renamed High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 268 of 2024, and Miscellaneous Applications 1250 of 2024 and 1251 of 2024 pending before Page 11 of 18

Justice Baguma Emmanuel since the Civil Division is the appropriate forum to handle matters commenced by way of Judicial Review.

- Under section 118(1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of 7. Public Assets Act Cap 205, a party to proceedings before the Tribunal who is aggrieved by the decisions of the Tribunal may, within thirty days after being notified of the Tribunal's decision or within such further time as the High Court may allow, lodge a notice of appeal with the registrar of the High Court. - 8. The Tribunal finds that the moment it rendered its decision in Application No. 27 of 2024 between the Applicant and the Respondent regarding the tender for construction of the National Council for Higher Education main building offices under Procurement Reference Number: NCHE/WRKS/23-24/001, the Tribunal became functus officio. - 9. It is the general principle of law that the court or a quasi-judicial body like the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Tribunal, after passing judgement, becomes functus officio and cannot revisit the judgement or purport to exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial power over the same matter except for the limited purpose of correcting clerical or mathematical errors. See Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda by Ssekaana Musa and Salima Namusobya Ssekaana, Chapter Nineteen, Appeals, Review and Revision, Page 275. - The Tribunal cannot re-open or re-adjudicate matters relating to 10. the tender for construction of the National Council for Higher Education main building offices under Procurement Reference Number: NCHE/WRKS/23-24/001 that is the subject of an appeal to the High Court as a Court of Record superior to the Tribunal. - 11. The Application, inter alia, required the Tribunal to determine whether the Respondent was in contempt of the decision of the PPDA Appeals Tribunal dated June 20, 2024, vide Application No. Page 12 of 18

27 of 2024 and sought a declaration that the Respondent was found in contempt of the Tribunal's decision in Application No. 27 of $2024$

- Actions for contempt arising out of a decision of the Tribunal 12. cannot be commenced by filling a fresh application before the Tribunal under the precincts of **Section 115 (1)(a)-(c) of the Public** Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act cap 205. Rather, actions for contempt should be filed or brought as miscellaneous applications arising out of the decision of the Tribunal from which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. - Further, the Tribunal noted the pleadings in High Court 13. Miscellaneous Cause No. 268 of 2024, and Miscellaneous Applications 1250 of 2024 and 1251 of 2024 pending before Justice Baguma Emmanuel and observed that the Applicant seeks the following reliefs from the High Court; - A Declaration that the Applicant had a legitimate expectation $(i)$ that, upon being declared the successful bidder for the construction of the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE) Main Building under Procurement REF: NCHE/ WORKS/ 23-24/001, a contract would be executed when funds became available. - *A Declaration that the Respondent's re-advertisement of the* $(ii)$ tender, despite existing financial commitments from Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, violated the Applicant's legitimate expectation to proceed with contract execution under the initially awarded tender. - (iii) A Declaration that the decision to re-advertise the tender was procedurally improper and ultra vires the principles of fair administrative action, which require that decisions affecting rights be made based on valid, fair, and lawful considerations. - (iv) A Declaration that the process by which the Respondent readvertised the tender lacked transparency and sufficient

## Page 13 of 18

notice to the Applicant and other stakeholders, constituting a breach of procedural fairness.

- (v) *A Declaration that the Respondent's action to subsequently* re-tender the same project was irrational, arbitrary. capricious and unreasonable, particularly commitment to fund the project. considering the Ministry of Finance, *Planning and Economic Development's.* - (vi) A Declaration that the absence of a fair hearing or opportunity for the Applicant to address the Respondent's concerns regarding funding or any other procedural deficiencies amounts to a breach of the principles of natural justice. - (vii) An Order of Certiorari quashing the decision of the Respondent to re-tender the project for Procurement under REF: NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/0001 and to re-advertise the same - (viii) An Order of Mandamus compelling the Respondent to reinstate the Applicant's successful bid and proceed with the execution of the contract under Procurement REF: NCHE/WORKS/23-24/001, given the availability of funding. - (ix) An Order setting aside the re-advertisement of the tender and prohibiting the Respondent from re-advertising or awarding the tender to any party other than the Applicant. - An Injunction restraining the Respondent from conducting $(x)$ the bidding process and awarding a new contract for the construction of the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE) Main Building pending the determination of this application. - $(xi)$ *Costs of this Application.* - The Reliefs that the Applicant sought in the instant Application 14. before the Tribunal are as follows;

Page 14 of 18

- $(i)$ *A declaration that the decision to re-advertise the tender for Procurement under REF: NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/0001* was procedurally improper and ultra vires the principles of fair administrative action and procurement laws. - $(ii)$ A declaration that the Respondent is in contempt of the decision of this Honourable PPDA Appeals Tribunal dated 20 June 2024. - (iii) An order setting aside the decision of the Respondent to retender the project for *Procurement* under *REF:* NCHE/WRKS/ 2024-2025/0001. - (iv) An order directing the Respondent to execute a contract with the *Applicant* $\it in$ respect $of$ *Procurement* REF: NCHE/WORKS/ 23-24/001. - $(v)$ *An award of Specific and General Damages.* - (vi) An order for reimbursement of costs so far incurred by the Applicant in pursuit of a remedy. - 15. The relief that the Applicant seeks before the High Court and Tribunal are the same in as far as they relate to challenging the process and propriety of the decision by the Respondent to readvertise the tender for Procurement under REF: NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/0001 and seeking orders to compel the Respondent to execute a contract with the Applicant arising out of Procurement REF: NCHE/WORKS/23-24/001. - 16. The High Court is superior to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Tribunal in hierarchy and the Tribunal cannot exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court. - 17. Under the law, abuse of the court process involves the use of the process for an improper purpose. See: **Uganda Land** Commission vs James Mark Kamoga & Another, SCCA No. 08 of 2004.

Page 15 of 18

- 18. In the instant Application, even if the application before the Tribunal had been properly brought, the Applicant would still have been barred from electing to take two concurrent proceedings challenging the process and propriety of the decision to re-advertise the tender for Procurement under REF: NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/0001 and seeking orders to compel the Respondent to execute a contract with the Applicant arising out of Procurement REF: NCHE/WORKS/23-24/001 before the High Court and this Tribunal. - The Applicant would be caught up by the principle of estoppel 19. by election. That being the case, it is our finding that the approach employed by the Applicant in bringing the instant application and, at the same time, maintaining a Judicial Review Application vide High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 268 of 2024 against the Respondent is barred in law. - The instant application would, therefore, be found to have been 20. brought in abuse of the process of law and would be struck out on this ground as well. Indeed, in *Hunter v Chief Constable of* The West Midlands [1982] AC 529, it was held that the principle of abuse of process involves a situation where a party is attempting to misuse the legal system optimally recognised. - $21.$ Section 6 of the *Civil Procedure Act cap. 282* provides as follows:

No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit or proceeding in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit or proceeding between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, where that suit or proceeding is pending in the same or any other court having jurisdiction in *Uganda* to grant the relief claimed.

It would be imprudent of the Tribunal to determine a matter in 22. which the reliefs sought are similar to a matter between the same parties that is yet to be determined by the High Court. Page 16 of 18

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine a matter which is also pending determination before the High Court. See Application No. 26 of 2023, Auto Terminal Japan Limited and 2 others v Uganda National Bureau of Standards

23. In the premises, it is our finding that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the instant Application, and the Tribunal shall not delve into the merits of the Application.

Page 17 of 18

## F. **DISPOSITION**

- $1.$ The Application is struck out. - The Tribunal's December 17, 2024 suspension order is vacated. $2.$ - $3.$ Each party is to bear its own costs.

Dated at Kampala this 9^th day of January 2025.

FRANCIS GIMARA S. C. **CHAIRPERSON**

GEOFFREY NUWAGIRA KAKIRA **MEMBER**

Munin

**NELSON NERIMA MEMBER**

PAUL KALUMBA **MEMBER**

tunne

**CHARITY KYARISIIMA MEMBER**

**KETO KAYEMBA MEMBER**

ENG. CYR TİTUS AOMU MEMBER

Page 18 of 18