The PPDA Appeals Tribunal has dismissed a case challenging Uganda Revenue Authority’s (URA) decision to rent office space in tycoon Sudhir Ruparelia’s new building, Pearl Tower One, at Shs 18. 7 billion over a period of three years.
The decision had been challenged by Twed Property Development Limited (TWED), which had also put in a bid after URA called for bids for office space in Kampala’s central business district on April 10 this year.
After evaluation, URA in May chose to go with Speke Hotel (1996) Limited, which represented Pearl One, which Sudhir recently launched. URA at that time said that Pearl One had the required parking slots (more than 1,000), which had been a major requirement.
However, on June 10, 2025, TWED, which had offered URA one of its 23-story blocks on Twed Heights along Lourdel Road, contested the results and appealed to the PPDA Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision.
TWED gave two main grounds for the appeal. First, it said URA’s accounting officer erred in awarding the contract to Sudhir as it did not meet the parking requirements. It argued that the building had not more than 200 parking slots according to the structural plans submitted to KCCA.
Second, it said the accounting officer erred in deciding that Pearl One met the requirements without considering the bid and evaluation report properly.
The tribunal, chaired by Nelson Nerima and including members Geoffrey Nuwagira Kakira, Paul Kalumba, Charity Kyariisima, Keto Kayemba, and Cyrus Titus Aomu, held a virtual hearing on June 23, 2025.
After reviewing submissions from all parties—including Speke Hotel, which defended its bid as fully compliant—the tribunal issued its decision on June 30, 2025.
Sudhir’s Goldstar lost Shs 584 million deal to Britam. It appealed but lost
The tribunal explained that Uganda’s procurement laws allow accounting officers to investigate complaints by gathering additional evidence, such as site inspections, especially when new allegations (like the whistleblower’s claims) are introduced.
The tribunal noted that it would be contradictory for TWED to rely on outside information to challenge the bid while criticizing URA for doing the same to verify it. The verification confirmed Speke’s compliance with parking requirements (312 slots + 100 additional), including off-site slots within 100 meters as allowed by the bidding document.
The tribunal rejected TWED’s arguments that the review was improper or that Speke’s bid deviated materially. Plots 1, 6, 7, and 9 (off-site) were deemed valid for parking, and photographic evidence of the premises supported this.
The judges emphasized that bids don’t require parking to be physically marked at submission time. That can be done later, after the contract is signed. They also clarified that landscaping for outdoor parking doesn’t need the same regulatory approvals as building structures.
The tribunal dismissed TWED’s application in its entirety. It upheld URA’s decision to award the contract to Speke Hotel (1996) Ltd, finding that the procurement process was fair, compliant with the bidding requirements, and properly reviewed.
