Judges sitting on the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA) Appeals Tribunal unanimously canceled the Shs13bn deal Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL) awarded to Ligomarc Advocates to represent President Yoweri Museveni’s government in the arbitration suit filed by Umeme in United Kingdom.
Judges led by Nelson Nerima, Geoffrey Nuwagira Kakira, Paul Kalumba, Charity Kyarisiima and Keto Kayemba, Cyrus Titus agreed with Dentons Advocates that Ligomarc Advocates fraudulently secured the deal.
Through their lawyers led by John Musiima, Dentons Advocates told the tribunal that UETCL invited in writing eight law firms namely; K&K Advocates, A.F. Mpanga, Kampala Associated Advocates, Ligomarc Advocates, Birungyi, Barata and Associated Legal & Tax Consultants, Nangwala, Rezida & Co. Advocates, Dentons Advocates (Formerly Kyagaba & Otatiina Advocates) and ALP Advocates to compete for the deal.
Only six law firms responded to the deal and after evaluation of all the bidders, UETCL announced that Ligomarc Advocates scored 91.55% Dentons Advocates scores 88.50%, AF Mpanga scores 85.10% and Nangwala, Rezida & Co. Advocates score 82.55%.
More Read
After the assessment, Dentons were not satisfied with the result and on 26 September 2025, they wrote to UETCL’s Accounting Officer to avail them with the evaluation report, including the reasons why they were not selected, the stage at which their bid was ranked lower than the best evaluated bidder, the detailed scoring sheets, evaluators’ comments, and any reports prepared by the evaluation committee.
The Accounting Officer declined to release the report to the petitioner on grounds of confidentiality and assured him that when the marks the law firm scored were released, on October 2, 2025, the petitioner filed an administrative review complaint accusing the said Accounting Officer and accusing Ligomarc Advocates of unlawful alteration of the contract price and failing to provide the evaluation report and adequate reasons for non selection.
Ligomarc Advocates was further accused of misrepresentation and illegality in key staff composition of their law firm by presenting counsel Kenneth Akampurira as a key member of its arbitration team yet he is the managing Partner of Amber Advocates another law firm.
The Accounting Officer issued an administrative review decision on October 7, 2025, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit which forced the petitioner to petition the tribunal.
According to the tribunal record, Ligomarc Advocates submited that it entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Akampurira and they registered their agreement with Uganda Registration Service Bureau (URSB) insisting that Akampurira is a practicing advocate with Amber Solicitors & Advocates.
In their agreement submitted to UETCL, they stated that their detailed engagement terms would be set out in a separate consultancy agreement to be negotiated only if the firm was shortlisted or awarded the contract.
The respondent insisted that in principle, it is permissible for a Firm to include a non-employee or partner among the proposed key staff under a sub-contracting arrangement.
They noted that it would appear that the actual sub-contract agreement is futuristic since the bidding Firm cannot enter into a sub contract in the absence of a contract with the procuring and disposing entity.
However, in their ruling, the tribunal judges noted that it was wrong for the Evaluation Committee not to assess the arrangement under which Ligomarc Advocates was proposing to utilize Akampurira as a key expert in the Firm, considering that the only available option in the circumstances was to utilize him as a sub-contractor.
“The Statement of Requirements required 1 Team leader/Senior Partner, 4 other advocates, and 1 London counsel. Ligomarc Advocates submitted 5 Ugandan advocates and 1 United Kingdom barrister. The Evaluation Committee assessed the proposed London counsel as 4th advocate, yet the submitted Ugandan advocates were Kabiito Karamagi (team leader), Ruth Sebatindira, Joshua Ogwal, Kenneth Akampurira, and Olivia Kyarimpa Matovu,” the tribunal record reads.
The tribunal ruled that it was wrong for the evaluation committee not to determine the effect, if any, of submitting 5 advocates instead of 4 adding that the 5th advocate, Olivia Kyarimpa Matovu, was not assessed, and no reasons were given for the omission.
The tribunal further wondered why the evaluation committee did not also determine whether, if Akampurira was to be disqualified, the remaining 4 Uganda advocates would suffice for purposes of responsiveness to the statement of requirements hence resolving the ground of smuggling counsel Akampurira in affirmative.
However, the best evaluated bidder also raised counter-allegations that the petitioner did not have the required experience, qualification and composition on ground that the firm was registered on January 13, 2025 that is why it was not qualified for the assignment.
In defense, counsel Musiime based on the statement of requirements, which required law firms with experience of at least 10 years of legal practice noting that what counts is the experience of the advocates in the law firm, but not the date of registration of the law firm.
“The Tribunal observed a breach of the statutory requirement for confidentiality as stipulated in section 50 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, cap. 205. The Applicant and the best evaluated bidder both attached copies of their technical proposals to the pleadings,” the tribunal ruled.
The arbitration against Uganda resulted from president Museveni’s decision directing the cancellation of the Umeme contract with the government of Uganda before it expired.
Umeme is also seeking a compensation of Shs1.1tn against government’s Shs427bn.
