Lesotho Case Law

Glorified Group of Companies (PTY) LTD V The Minister of Agriculture and Food Security & 3 Others (C of A (CIV) 07/2025)

Glorified Group of Companies (PTY) LTD V The Minister of Agriculture and Food Security & 3 Others (C of A (CIV) 07/2025) [2025] LSCA 6 (2 May 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

C of A (CIV) 07/2025

Public officials cannot be held in contempt for failing to comply with a court order where compliance would require them to act in contravention of statutory procurement regulations; in such circumstances, non-compliance is not wilful or mala fide and does not attract penal consequences.

Source excerpt

• Contempt of court
• Enforcement of tribunal orders
• Statutory illegality
• Res judicata
• Public contracts

Read case analysis

Procurement Unit Ministry of Development Planning & 7 Others V Supper Solutions (PTY) Ltd & Ano. (C of A (CIV) No 29/2024)

Procurement Unit Ministry of Development Planning & 7 Others V Supper Solutions (PTY) Ltd & Ano. (C of A (CIV) No 29/2024) [2024] LSCA 26 (1 November 2024)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

C of A (CIV) No 29/2024

The Court of Appeal set aside a settlement order in a procurement dispute, holding the deed contrary to public policy, unlawful, and lacking justa causa.

• Deeds of settlement
• Public policy
• Justa causa
• Unconscionability
• Court's power to raise issues sua motu
• Sanctity of contract

Read case analysis

Phakoe Building Construction v Tsilo Star Construction (CCA/0044/2019)

Phakoe Building Construction v Tsilo Star Construction (CCA/0044/2019) [2023] LSHC 11 (13 March 2023)

Court

High Court

Case number

CCA/0044/2019

The Tender Panel lawfully exercised its discretion in disqualifying Phakoe's irregular bid and awarding the tender to Ts’ilo Star Construction (Pty) Ltd. No valid complaint was lodged with the Procurement Unit, thus the PPAD lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The contract was fully performed, rendering the application moot.

Source excerpt

• Tender process
• Jurisdiction of procurement bodies
• Mootness
• Review of administrative action

Read case analysis

Qhomane Construction and Transport v Maseru City Council (CCA/0057/2021)

Qhomane Construction and Transport v Maseru City Council (CCA/0057/2021) [2023] LSHC 12 (28 February 2023)

Court

High Court

Case number

CCA/0057/2021

The extension of the tender submission deadline by telephone was unlawful and violated the principles of transparency and equal treatment. The applicant was not entitled to a contract as the process was fundamentally flawed. The failure to afford the applicant a hearing was noted, but the underlying procurement irregularity was so grave that the decision to re-tender was justified. The application was dismissed as the award to the applicant was invalid.

Source excerpt

• Tender process
• Legitimate expectation
• Audi alteram partem
• Judicial review
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis

Jappie Catering v Ministry of Health (CCA/0113/2022)

Jappie Catering v Ministry of Health (CCA/0113/2022) [2022] LSHC 170 (15 November 2022)

Court

High Court

Case number

CCA/0113/2022

Applicant failed to establish urgency as business loss does not justify preferential treatment; failed to prove a prima facie right or irreparable harm as contract had expired and no constitutional discrimination was shown; interim interdict requirements not met.

Source excerpt

• Urgency in applications
• Interim interdicts
• Legitimate expectation
• Discrimination
• Public procurement process

Read case analysis

Procurement Policy and Advice Division v Laxton Group Limited (C of A (CIV) 26/2022)

Procurement Policy and Advice Division v Laxton Group Limited (C of A (CIV) 26/2022) [2022] LSCA 51 (11 November 2022)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

C of A (CIV) 26/2022

The Tender Panel's award to Laxton was ultra vires and void for failing to follow the Evaluation Team's recommendation and for acting outside its statutory powers. The denial of audi to Laxton was rendered moot by the illegality of the award. The PPAD's decision to order re-evaluation, though procedurally irregular, was justified due to the underlying illegality. Laxton's application for review was therefore dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Tender process
• Judicial review
• Audi alteram partem
• Collateral challenge
• Legality in procurement

Read case analysis

Attorney General v Frazer Solar GMBH (CIV/APN/332/2021)

Attorney General v Frazer Solar GMBH (CIV/APN/332/2021) [2022] LSHC 141 (9 November 2022)

Court

High Court

Case number

CIV/APN/332/2021

The Supply Agreement and its arbitration clause are void ab initio as they were concluded in breach of procurement laws, the PFMAA, and the Constitution, without Cabinet or Minister of Finance approval, and contrary to public policy. The arbitration clause cannot survive the invalidity of the main contract. Delay in bringing the application is condoned due to the seriousness of the illegality and the need to uphold the rule of law.

Source excerpt

• Procurement irregularities
• Ministerial authority
• Public finance management
• Constitutional compliance
• Arbitration clause validity
• Delay in review

Read case analysis

Exr Construction Lesotho Pty Ltd v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Local Government and Chieftainship (CCA/0049/2018)

Exr Construction Lesotho Pty Ltd v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Local Government and Chieftainship (CCA/0049/2018) [2022] LSHC 115 (31 August 2022)

Court

High Court

Case number

CCA/0049/2018

The applicant was correctly excluded from the tender process for failing to submit a certified copy of its trader’s license as required by the tender invitation and regulations. The regulations are peremptory and do not afford the procuring authority discretion to condone non-compliance at the review stage. The award to the 5th respondent was not shown to be irregular.

Source excerpt

• Tender law
• Judicial review
• Procurement regulations
• Discretion in administrative law

Read case analysis

Engidata (Pty) Ltd v Fischer Consulting Joint Venture (CCA/0115/2021)

Engidata (Pty) Ltd v Fischer Consulting Joint Venture (CCA/0115/2021) [2022] LSHC 49 (9 June 2022)

Court

High Court

Case number

CCA/0115/2021

The applicant failed to establish an interest in an existing, future, or contingent right or obligation as required for a declarator, since the World Bank Procurement Regulations do not confer enforceable rights on bidders. Consequently, the applicant also lacks locus standi. The application is dismissed on these bases without considering the remaining points in limine or the merits.

Source excerpt

• Declaratory relief
• Locus standi
• Points in limine
• Procurement regulations
• Conflict of interest

Read case analysis

Laxton Group Limited v Procurement Unit, Independent Electrol Commission (CCA/0039/2022)

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

Court

High Court

Case number

CCA/0039/2022

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.

Source excerpt

• Tender process
• Audi alteram partem
• Procedural fairness
• Review of administrative action

Read case analysis