D and D Law Publishing House Limited v Electoral Commission (Application No. 35 of 2025) [2025] UGPPDPAAT 46 (23 October 2025)

Key Facts

Issues

• The Tribunal evaluated whether the Respondent (Electoral Commission) erred in disqualifying the Applicant's bids for Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, focusing on compliance with bidding document requirements, the nature of the Applicant's partnership with Mail Solutions UK, and the materiality of missing documents like audited accounts and joint venture agreements.
• The Tribunal addressed whether the Applicant (D&D Law Publishing House Ltd) had locus standi to appeal the Electoral Commission's decision, considering if they properly exhausted administrative review procedures and if the Accounting Officer's response to their complaint was valid.
• The Tribunal determined that no remedies were available to the Applicant due to their bids being non-compliant with administrative requirements, including failure to submit audited financial statements and necessary legal documents for their partnership with Mail Solutions UK.

Holdings

• The Tribunal found that the Applicant has locus standi to file the application before the Tribunal as the Accounting Officer had already decided on the Applicant's initial complaint and the non-payment of fees cannot be relied upon to argue the application was premature.
• The Tribunal concluded that no remedies are available to the Applicant as their bids were not administratively compliant, and the Applicant failed to raise issues regarding margin of preference before the Accounting Officer.
• The Tribunal determined that the Respondent did not err in law when disqualifying the Applicant's bids for non-compliance with mandatory requirements, including the lack of joint venture agreements, powers of attorney, and audited financial statements. The non-compliance constituted material deviations, and no remedies are available as the bids were rightfully rejected.

Remedies

Legal Principles

• The Applicant was required to exhaust administrative remedies by lodging a formal complaint with the Accounting Officer before appealing to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found the Applicant's communication constituted a valid administrative review complaint, satisfying the procedural requirement to exhaust remedies under section 106 of the Act.
• The Tribunal exercised its authority under section 115 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act to review the lawfulness and merits of the procurement decision. It assessed whether the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the law and the Bidding Document, ensuring procedural fairness (right to be heard, absence of bias) and that all interested parties were given an opportunity to present their case.
• The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and the absence of bias, in evaluating the procurement process. It required the evaluation committee to provide all interested parties with an opportunity to present their case and ensure decisions were made without bias, adhering to procedural fairness.

Precedent Name

• Gibb (PTY) Limited in Joint Venture with Acmirs Consulting Limited v Ministry of Works and Transport and Another
• Kasokoso Services Limited v Jinja School of Nursing & Midwifery
• The Executive Committee of Iganga Central Market vs Iganga Municipal Council
• Emtec Technical Services Ltd v Uganda High Commission, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
• Goldstar Insurance Company Limited v Uganda National Oil Company
• Yoya Technologies Limited, Eviden Information Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd and Percent Technology Group Co. Ltd Joint Venture, Aisino Corporation v Uganda Revenue Authority
• Samanga Elcomplus JV v PPDA & Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited
• Twed Property Development Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority
• Arua Municipal Council v Arua United Transporters SACCO

Cited Statute

• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, 2023
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, Cap 205
• Interpretation Act

Judge Name

• FRANCIS GIMARA SC
• ENG. CYRUS TITUS AOMU
• NELSON NERIMA
• GEOFFREY NUWAGIRA KAKIRA
• CHARITY KYARISIIMA

Passage Text

• The Applicant's failure to submit the mandatory Joint Venture Agreement or letter of intent, and the Powers of Attorney, rendered its bids non-responsive to the eligibility and administrative requirements.
• The Application is dismissed... the Applicant is not entitled to any remedies.
• The Applicant's communication to the Accounting Officer on 18 September 2025 constituted a formal administrative review complaint capable of triggering the Respondent's obligations under the law.