PT Ratalane Construction PTY LTD V P.S Ministry od Education and Training (CCA/0125/2022) [2023] LSHC 134 (3 August 2023)

PT Ratalane Construction PTY LTD V P.S Ministry od Education and Training (CCA/0125/2022) [2023] LSHC 134 (3 August 2023)

The decision to cancel the tender was both unfair and unreasonable as no reasons were provided to the applicant, and the consultant's objection did not override the evaluation team's objective assessment under the procurement guidelines. The cancellation was set aside and the respondents were ordered to proceed with the tendering process and invite the applicant to contract negotiations.

Citation
[2023] LSHC 134
Parties
Applicant: PT Ratalane Construction (Pty) Ltd; 1st Respondent: Principal Secretary Ministry of Education and Training; 2nd Respondent: Ministry of Education and Training; 3rd Respondent: Procurement Unit Ministry of Education and Training; 4th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
3 August 2023
Case Number
CCA/0125/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; tender cancellation set aside; respondents ordered to proceed with contract; costs awarded to applicant.
Legal Topics
Tender Cancellation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Remedies in Administrative Law
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Procurement Law Tender Cancellation Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Remedies in Administrative Law

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PT Ratalane Construction (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Principal Secretary Ministry of Education and Training

1st Respondent

Ministry of Education and Training

2nd Respondent

Procurement Unit Ministry of Education and Training

3rd Respondent

Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cancellation of the tender without reasons and without hearing the successful bidder was unfair and unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the consultant's objection could override the evaluation team's decision under the applicable procurement guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to cancel the tender was both unfair and unreasonable as no reasons were provided to the applicant, and the consultant's objection did not override the evaluation team's objective assessment under the procurement guidelines. The cancellation was set aside and the respondents were ordered to proceed with the tendering process and invite the applicant to contract negotiations.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; tender cancellation set aside; respondents ordered to proceed with contract; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The 2nd Respondent’s decision to cancel the tender is reviewed, corrected and set aside as unreasonable and unfair.
  • The 1st and 3rd Respondents are directed to proceed with the tendering process and invite the applicant to enter into a contract in accordance with section 5.08 of the Procurement Guidelines.