[2022] UGPPDPAAT 11
The Tribunal denied approval for withdrawal of the application because the withdrawal was based on an unlawful compromise. The Chief Administrative Officer/Accounting Officer acted without authority by issuing a new decision while an appeal and suspension order were pending, contravening Section 89(11)(a) of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] UGPPDPAAT 11
- Parties
- Applicant: Kansiime David; Respondent: Hoima District Local Government
- Court
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Application No. 11 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Administrative Review Application / Ruling on Withdrawal Request
- Outcome
- application struck out; withdrawal denied
- Judges
- Isanga, Ag. Chairperson, Kakira, Panel Member, Kalumba, Asiimwe
- Legal Topics
- Public Procurement, Administrative Review, Withdrawal of Application, Tribunal Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kansiime David
Applicant
Hoima District Local Government
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review Application / Ruling on Withdrawal Request
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Tribunal should approve the withdrawal of the application for administrative review.
- 2 Whether the withdrawal is premised on a lawful compromise under the PPDA Act and Regulations.
- 3 Whether the Chief Administrative Officer/Accounting Officer had authority to issue a new decision during a pending appeal and suspension order.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal denied approval for withdrawal of the application because the withdrawal was based on an unlawful compromise. The Chief Administrative Officer/Accounting Officer acted without authority by issuing a new decision while an appeal and suspension order were pending, contravening Section 89(11)(a) of the PPDA Act. Furthermore, the officer was functus officio, having already made an administrative review decision, and the Contracts Committee could not make a new award without a proper re-evaluation. As the applicant was unwilling to proceed and the withdrawal was not legally permissible, the application was struck out with no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
application struck out; withdrawal denied
Orders
- Approval to withdraw the application is denied.
- The application is struck out with no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC ASSETS APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT KAMPALA
## **APPLICATION NO.11 OF 2022**
**KANSIIME DAVID===========================APPLICANT**
VS.
#### HOIMA DISTRICT LOCAL GOVERNMENT=========== RESPONDENT
APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN RESPECT OF THE TENDER FOR RUNGA MARKET; PROCUREMENT REFERENCE NUMBER HOIM509/SVCS/2021-22/00001.
# BEFORE: FRANCIS GIMARA S. C. CHAIRPERSON; NELSON NERIMA; THOMAS BROOKES ISANGA; GEOFFREY NUWAGIRA KAKIRA: PAUL KALUMBA; CHARITY KYARISIIMA; AND PATRICIA K. ASIIMWE, **MEMBERS.**
## **RULING**
The Applicant filed this Application on 11<sup>th</sup> March 2022 to challenge the Respondent's award of a tender for Runga market to Tibalyerinda John. The Tribunal issued a suspension order of the procurement on 14<sup>th</sup> March 2022 by email to the Accounting Officer of the Respondent.
On 25<sup>th</sup> March 2022 the Applicant lodged a notice of withdrawal of the Application. The reason stated for withdrawal is that another committee reviewed and upheld the administrative review application under a communication reference $CR/156/2$ .
The letter CR/156/2 is a communication from the Respondent Chief Administrative Officer to the Applicant dated 14<sup>th</sup> March 2022. The Chief Administrative Officer states that another administrative review committee had recommended that the Contracts Committee review its earlier decision and consider awarding the contract to Mr. Kansiime David. That there was no best evaluated bidder for the revenue source because the bid from Mr. Tibalyerinda John had no bid security. That the Contracts Committee
Ruling of the Tribunal in Application No. 11 of 2022
should review its decision and consider awarding the contract to Mr. Kansiime David pending negotiations with the Entity for him to withdraw the Court case from the High Court in Masindi.
Mr. Kansiime the Applicant and Mr. Byamungu the Chief Administrative Officer/ Accounting Officer of the Respondent have confirmed that they stand by the new decision and the prayer to withdraw the Application.
Under Regulation 16(3) of the PPDA (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016, a withdrawal requires approval of the Tribunal.
In the instant case, we are not prepared to approve the withdrawal because it is premised on an unlawful compromise. First, it was unlawful for the Chief Administrative Officer/ Accounting Officer to issue a new decision when there was a pending appeal to this Tribunal and a subsisting suspension order. See Section 89 (11) (a) of the PPDA Act as amended by the Act of $15$ of $2021$ .
Secondly, the Chief Administrative Officer/ Accounting Officer was functus officio, having made an administrative review decision on 3<sup>rd</sup> March 2022.
Thirdly, the Contracts Committee cannot make a new award decision in the absence of a re-evaluation by the Evaluation Committee.
Since the Applicant is not willing to proceed with the Application and the purported withdrawal is based on an unlawful compromise, approval to withdraw the Application is denied. The application is struck out with no order as to costs.
Dated this 29<sup>th</sup> day of March 2022.
FRANCIS GIMARA S. C. **CHAIRPERSON**
**NELSON NERIMA MEMBER**
Ruling of the Tribunal in Application No. 11 of 2022
**THOMAS BROOKES ISANGA MEMBER**
**PAUL KALUMBA MEMBER**
GEOFFREY NUWAGIRA KAKIRA **MEMBER**
**CHARITY KYARISIIMA MEMBER**
$\cdots$ PATRICIA K. ASIIMWE **MEMBER**
Ruling of the Tribunal in Application No. 11 of 2022