Namibia Airports Company Ltd v Fire Tech Systems CC and Another (SA 49 of 2016) [2019] NASC 8 (12 April 2019)

Namibia Airports Company Ltd v Fire Tech Systems CC and Another (SA 49 of 2016) [2019] NASC 8 (12 April 2019)

The High Court erred in granting leave to claim damages as such relief was not sought by the applicant and no case was made for it. The court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to set aside the tender award, as the contract had been fully performed, and setting it aside would be impractical and disruptive. The cross-appeal fails as the High Court did not misdirect itself in refusing to set aside the tender.

Citation
[2019] NASC 8
Parties
Appellant: Namibia Airports Company Ltd; First Respondent: Fire Tech Systems CC; Second Respondent: IBB Military Services and Accessories (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
12 April 2019
Case Number
SA 49 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tender Process, Judicial Review, Remedies for Unlawful Administrative Action, Damages for Breach of Administrative Justice, Discretionary Powers of Court, Setting Aside Administrative Acts
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Procurement Tender Process Judicial Review Remedies for Unlawful Administrative Action Damages for Breach of Administrative Justice Discretionary Powers of Court +1 more

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Namibia Airports Company Ltd

Appellant

Fire Tech Systems CC

First Respondent

IBB Military Services and Accessories (Pty) Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in granting leave to claim damages not sought by the applicant
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in not setting aside an unlawful and irregular tender award
  3. 3 Whether damages are an appropriate remedy for breach of administrative justice in tender matters

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in granting leave to claim damages as such relief was not sought by the applicant and no case was made for it. The court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to set aside the tender award, as the contract had been fully performed, and setting it aside would be impractical and disruptive. The cross-appeal fails as the High Court did not misdirect itself in refusing to set aside the tender.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including costs of one instructing and two instructed counsel, limited to 70% for heads of argument preparation.
  • Paragraph 3 of the High Court’s order (granting leave to claim damages) is deleted.