A Kampala High Court has ordered the Bank of Uganda to pay C&S Upholstery Limited 200 million shillings in damages. Justice Musa Ssekaana found that the bank wrongfully rejected the carpet company's bid and falsely accused them of forgery. The ruling centered on lost earnings that resulted from the bank's breach of duty during a procurement process. The carpet supplier proved its legitimate business standing against these unfounded claims.
The case began when the Bank of Uganda invited companies to replace carpets across six floors of its headquarters in May 2019. By the June deadline, C&S submitted proper paperwork, including authorization from Windsor International Limited. The bank later questioned whether C&S truly represented the carpet manufacturers. Shaw Contract Group confirmed C&S as an authorized supplier, with Windsor International serving as their intermediary partner.
Despite receiving confirmation, bank officials claimed the paperwork contained forgeries. They removed C&S from consideration and asked for investigations into potential misconduct. These actions prompted C&S to file a complaint with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority. After a thorough review, PPDA officials determined no forgery happened, and Windsor International had actually provided proper authorization.
C&S then sued the Bank of Uganda, stating that these false accusations damaged their reputation and caused financial hardship. They presented evidence of their 25-year business relationship with the central bank. The company sought compensation for 5.2 billion shillings from lost earnings plus 2 billion more from subsequently rejected bids with other organizations that heard these allegations.
Bank officials defended themselves by claiming C&S needed to exhaust administrative review options before filing court action. They argued the company never faced formal suspension since it maintained valid registration certificates and licenses. Bank representatives also stated C&S lost simply because its bid cost more than competitors' and failed to meet technical requirements.
Justice Ssekaana disagreed with these arguments. His ruling emphasized that the Bank of Uganda breached its duty by failing to verify claims before disqualifying the company. Since the procurement authority found no wrongdoing, the bank acted without justification. The court awarded 200 million shillings plus 15 percent yearly interest from judgment day until full payment, along with covering legal costs.
The case began when the Bank of Uganda invited companies to replace carpets across six floors of its headquarters in May 2019. By the June deadline, C&S submitted proper paperwork, including authorization from Windsor International Limited. The bank later questioned whether C&S truly represented the carpet manufacturers. Shaw Contract Group confirmed C&S as an authorized supplier, with Windsor International serving as their intermediary partner.
Despite receiving confirmation, bank officials claimed the paperwork contained forgeries. They removed C&S from consideration and asked for investigations into potential misconduct. These actions prompted C&S to file a complaint with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority. After a thorough review, PPDA officials determined no forgery happened, and Windsor International had actually provided proper authorization.
C&S then sued the Bank of Uganda, stating that these false accusations damaged their reputation and caused financial hardship. They presented evidence of their 25-year business relationship with the central bank. The company sought compensation for 5.2 billion shillings from lost earnings plus 2 billion more from subsequently rejected bids with other organizations that heard these allegations.
Bank officials defended themselves by claiming C&S needed to exhaust administrative review options before filing court action. They argued the company never faced formal suspension since it maintained valid registration certificates and licenses. Bank representatives also stated C&S lost simply because its bid cost more than competitors' and failed to meet technical requirements.
Justice Ssekaana disagreed with these arguments. His ruling emphasized that the Bank of Uganda breached its duty by failing to verify claims before disqualifying the company. Since the procurement authority found no wrongdoing, the bank acted without justification. The court awarded 200 million shillings plus 15 percent yearly interest from judgment day until full payment, along with covering legal costs.
