Selemela Construction (Pty) Ltd v Road Fund & Others (CCA/0084/2021) [2021] LSHC 21 (26 November 2021)

Selemela Construction (Pty) Ltd v Road Fund & Others (CCA/0084/2021) [2021] LSHC 21 (26 November 2021)

The application did not meet the requirements for urgency as financial considerations alone do not justify deviation from ordinary rules, and the applicant failed to demonstrate why substantial relief could not be obtained in due course. The applicant also failed to show irreparable harm or absence of an adequate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] LSHC 21
Parties
Applicant: Selemela Construction (Pty) Ltd; 1st Respondent: Road Fund; 2nd Respondent: Pemahn Consulting (Pty) Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Batloung Ramokepa
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
26 November 2021 26 November 2021 17 June 2021
Case Number
CCA/0084/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Interdict Pendente Lite and Review / Ruling on Urgency and Interim Interdict
Outcome
Interim interdict application dismissed; non-compliance with rules condoned; other prayers postponed sine die.
Legal Topics
Urgency in Applications, Temporary Interdicts, Tender Disputes, Review of Administrative Action
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Urgency in Applications Temporary Interdicts Tender Disputes Review of Administrative Action

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Selemela Construction (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Road Fund

1st Respondent

Pemahn Consulting (Pty) Ltd

2nd Respondent

Batloung Ramokepa

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interdict Pendente Lite and Review / Ruling on Urgency and Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the matter is urgent and warrants deviation from ordinary court rules
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict pending review
  3. 3 Whether financial hardship alone justifies urgency

Ratio Decidendi

The application did not meet the requirements for urgency as financial considerations alone do not justify deviation from ordinary rules, and the applicant failed to demonstrate why substantial relief could not be obtained in due course. The applicant also failed to show irreparable harm or absence of an adequate alternative remedy, as damages and refund of bid security would suffice. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent due to public interest in timely completion of the project.

Court Disposition

Interim interdict application dismissed; non-compliance with rules condoned; other prayers postponed sine die.

Orders

  • Applicant’s non-compliance with rules of service is condoned.
  • Application for interdict pendente lite (prayer 2(b)) is dismissed.