Drytex (Pty) Ltd Lesotho v Pyramid Laundry Services (CCA 3136 of 2014) [2015] LSHC 60 (17 September 2015)

Drytex (Pty) Ltd Lesotho v Pyramid Laundry Services (CCA 3136 of 2014) [2015] LSHC 60 (17 September 2015)

The court found that a valid and binding contract had already been signed between the 1st respondent and the 2nd and 3rd respondents before the PPAD recommendation; the court cannot cancel this contract or award it to the applicant, as this would amount to making a contract for the parties, which is not the court's role. The applicant's remedy, if any, lies in a claim for damages, not in cancellation or enforcement of the contract.

Citation
[2015] LSHC 60
Parties
Applicant: Drytex (Pty) Ltd Lesotho; 1st Respondent: Pyramid Laundry Services; 2nd Respondent: Ministry of Health; 3rd Respondent: The Principal Secretary for Ministry of Health; 4th Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
17 September 2015
Case Number
CCA 3136 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application (notice of Motion) / Judgment After Hearing on Merits
Outcome
application dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale
Legal Topics
Tender Process, Judicial Review, Contract Validity, Remedies in Procurement Disputes
Source Language
English
Public Procurement Administrative Law Contract Law Tender Process Judicial Review Contract Validity Remedies in Procurement Disputes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Drytex (Pty) Ltd Lesotho

Applicant

Pyramid Laundry Services

1st Respondent

Ministry of Health

2nd Respondent

The Principal Secretary for Ministry of Health

3rd Respondent

The Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application (notice of Motion) / Judgment After Hearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract between the 1st respondent and the 2nd and 3rd respondents is void and should be cancelled
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be awarded the contract or invited to negotiations as the preferred bidder
  3. 3 Whether the matter should have been brought by way of judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a valid and binding contract had already been signed between the 1st respondent and the 2nd and 3rd respondents before the PPAD recommendation; the court cannot cancel this contract or award it to the applicant, as this would amount to making a contract for the parties, which is not the court's role. The applicant's remedy, if any, lies in a claim for damages, not in cancellation or enforcement of the contract.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale

Orders

  • The application is dismissed in the main and in the alternative with costs on the ordinary scale.