The PPDA Appeals Tribunal has dismissed an application by Cementers Uganda which had challenged its disqualification from a Shs45.49 billion housing project tender by the National Social Security Fund (NSSF).
In a decision, the tribunal reuled that Cementers’ application was “incompetent” because it had been filed out of time. It declined to consider the merits of the dispute.
Last year NSSF called for bids for the construction of a residential project in Magere, Wakiso, under restricted domestic bidding.
Four firms submitted bids on November 12, 2025: Cementers Uganda Ltd, National Housing and Construction Company Ltd, Excel Construction Company Ltd and Ambitious Construction Company Ltd.
On December 16, 2025, NSSF declared Ambitious Construction Company the winner at a contract price of Shs45.4 billion.
Cementers bid was declared invalid because its bid submission sheet referred to ITB 19.1 for the bid validity date, yet that clause relates to currencies of bid and payment. The correct clause, NSSF said, was ITB 20.1, which required a bid validity period up to November 26, 2026.
Cementers protested. It argued that referencing ITB 19.1 instead of ITB 20.1 was “a minor clerical error” that did not affect the substance of its bid. It insisted it had complied with all mandatory requirements and had indeed submitted the codes of conduct.
On December 27, 2025, Cementers lodged an administrative review complaint with NSSF’s Accounting Officer by email, and later delivered a physical copy.
When it did not receive what it considered a timely response, the company filed an application before the tribunal on January 22, 2026, seeking to set aside the procurement decision and order a fresh evaluation.
NSSF raised preliminary objections. It argued that the Accounting Officer had in fact investigated the complaint and communicated a written decision by email on December 31, 2025. It also said Cementers had failed to pay the prescribed Shs 5 million administrative review fees.
Crucially, NSSF also argued that Cementers application was time-barred because it was filed outside the mandatory 10 working days as provided by law.
The tribunal, chaired by Francis Gimara, agreed.
Citing the Electronic Transactions Act, the members noted that “emails are legally recognised as valid data messages and effective means of communication.”
The record showed that on December 31, 2025 at 2:40pm, NSSF’s procurement manager sent the decision by email to several Cementers addresses, including the company’s official address as listed on its own letterhead.
“On a holistic assessment of Annexure J, it is clear that service was duly and effectively completed upon successful handover of the email and its attachments to the Applicant’s mail system,” the tribunal ruled.
Having found that the decision was received on December 31, 2025, the tribunal calculated the statutory 10 working days for filing an appeal.
After excluding two public holidays declared for the January 2026 general elections, the last day for filing fell on Monday, January 19, 2026. Cementers filed its application on January 22, 2026.
It added that even if one assumed the accounting officer at NSSF had failed to make a decision, the alternative computation of time would still have led to January 19, 2026 as the last day for filing.
Because of that finding, the tribunal declined to consider the substantive complaints by Cementers about bid validity or the alleged failure to submit codes of conduct.
“In view of the foregoing, the application is incompetent and will be struck out. There is no need to delve into the merits or the other issues of the application,” the tribunal ruled, dealing a blow to Cementers.
