Laxton Group Limited v Procurement Unit, Independent Electrol Commission (CCA/0039/2022) [2022] LSHC 117 (23 May 2022)

Laxton Group Limited v Procurement Unit, Independent Electrol Commission (CCA/0039/2022) [2022] LSHC 117 (23 May 2022)

Laxton was not afforded a hearing as required by regulation 54(2) of the Public Procurement Regulations 2007 before the decision to re-evaluate the tender was made. This failure violated the audi alteram partem rule and principles of natural justice, rendering the decisions of the PPAD and IEC to re-evaluate the tender unlawful and procedurally unfair. The impugned decisions were reviewed and set aside.

Citation
[2022] LSHC 117
Parties
Applicant: Laxton Group Limited; 1st Respondent: Procurement Unit, Independent Electoral Commission; 2nd Respondent: The Tender Panel, Independent Electoral Commission; 3rd Respondent: Procurement Policy & Advice Division; 4th Respondent: Independent Electoral Commission; 5th Respondent: Axon and Cloud Hub; 6th Respondent: Face Technologies (Pty) Ltd; 7th Respondent: Zero One Group; 8th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
23 May 2022
Case Number
CCA/0039/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part; decisions to re-evaluate the tender set aside; costs awarded against third and eighth respondents.
Legal Topics
Tender Process, Audi Alteram Partem, Procedural Fairness, Review of Administrative Action
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Public Procurement Tender Process Audi Alteram Partem Procedural Fairness Review of Administrative Action

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laxton Group Limited

Applicant

Procurement Unit, Independent Electoral Commission

1st Respondent

The Tender Panel, Independent Electoral Commission

2nd Respondent

Procurement Policy & Advice Division

3rd Respondent

Independent Electoral Commission

4th Respondent

Axon and Cloud Hub

5th Respondent

Face Technologies (Pty) Ltd

6th Respondent

Zero One Group

7th Respondent

Attorney General

8th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Laxton Group Limited was afforded a hearing in accordance with regulation 54(2) of the Public Procurement Regulations 2007 before the decision to re-evaluate the tender was made
  2. 2 Whether the decisions of the PPAD and IEC to re-evaluate the tender were lawful and procedurally fair
  3. 3 Whether the invitation to enter into contract created a binding contract between IEC and Laxton

Ratio Decidendi

Laxton was not afforded a hearing as required by regulation 54(2) of the Public Procurement Regulations 2007 before the decision to re-evaluate the tender was made. This failure violated the audi alteram partem rule and principles of natural justice, rendering the decisions of the PPAD and IEC to re-evaluate the tender unlawful and procedurally unfair. The impugned decisions were reviewed and set aside.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; decisions to re-evaluate the tender set aside; costs awarded against third and eighth respondents.

Orders

  • The decision of the 3rd respondent (PPAD) to re-evaluate the tender is reviewed and set aside.
  • The decision of the 4th respondent (IEC) to re-evaluate the tender is reviewed and set aside.