[2007] UGCommC 89

[2007] UGCommC 89

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate compelling reasons for the grant of leave to apply for judicial review. The PPDA did not direct the cancellation of the tender; rather, the first respondent acted independently. The applicant admitted this in its affidavit. The court held that if a contract...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] UGCommC 89
Parties
Applicant: Galleria in Africa Ltd; Respondent: Uganda Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd; Respondent: Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-MC 20 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ex Parte Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review disallowed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Public Procurement, Contract Award Cancellation, Prerogative Orders
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Judicial Review Public Procurement Contract Award Cancellation Prerogative Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Galleria in Africa Ltd

Applicant

Uganda Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd

Respondent

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ex Parte Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to apply for judicial review against the cancellation of a tender award.
  2. 2 Whether the cancellation of the tender was illegal or contrary to procurement law and principles of natural justice.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has an alternative remedy under contract law, making judicial review inappropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate compelling reasons for the grant of leave to apply for judicial review. The PPDA did not direct the cancellation of the tender; rather, the first respondent acted independently. The applicant admitted this in its affidavit. The court held that if a contract existed between the applicant and the first respondent, any alleged breach should be remedied through an ordinary suit for breach of contract or specific performance, not through prerogative orders. Judicial review is not appropriate where an alternative statutory or contractual remedy exists. The application was therefore misconceived as against the second respondent and...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review disallowed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is denied.
  • The applicant shall bear its own costs.