Appeal in P662m tender set for December
Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Wednesday November 26, 2025 06:00
Last month, Justice Isaac Lesetedi of the Court of Appeal (CoA) ruled that the matter should be heard urgently, whilst time is of the essence for the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) government to implement its proposed e-learning programme and demonstrate its success.
In this case, the ministry wants the apex court to set aside the Maun High Court’s decision to endorse as an order of the court, an administrative directive by the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) cancelling a P662 million tender for the implementation of an educational programme for basic education learners.
The tender, a 'Service Contract for the Implementation of an Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) E-Learning Solution, Early Childhood Learning Solution, Coding and Robotics Solutions, and Teacher Capacity Building', is the subject of a court case between the ministry and Techboe (Pty) Ltd, after the latter had challenged its award to a South African company, Emeritus Training Academy (Pty) Ltd.
The ministry has filed an urgent appeal against certain findings of fact and/or rulings of law. In the grounds of appeal, the ministry argues that the court a quo erred in law by adopting the directive of the PPRA as an order of the court without affording the appellants and other affected parties an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the appellants’ right to a fair hearing.
The ministry also argues that the learned judge a quo erred in law and procedure by granting relief at the instance of the PPRA, which was not a party to the proceedings at the time, and in circumstances where the application against the PPRA had been withdrawn, thereby rendering the PPRA without locus standi in the matter.
'The court a quo misdirected itself by issuing an order based on a directive of an administrative body without a formal application before the court, and in the absence of proper notice or service upon the parties, contrary to the principles of natural justice and the Rules of the High Court,' read part of the grounds of appeal.
'The court a quo misdirected itself in law by exercising judicial discretion irregularly and unfairly in converting an administrative directive into an order of court without considering the procedural fairness owed to the affected parties, and in circumstances where the procedural rights of the parties were not respected.'
Furthermore, the ministry believes that the court a quo erred in granting a final interdict whilst the relief sought was interim in nature.
'The applicant in the court a quo had specifically sought an interim interdict pending the outcome of an investigation into the direct appointment of a service provider. Despite this, the court granted a final order cancelling the tender, which went beyond the relief pleaded and sought in the notice of motion,' the ministry further said in its ground of appeal.
The ministry stated that the court a quo acted ultra petita by granting relief not sought by the applicant, further stating that the court's decision amounted to a final adjudication of rights in circumstances where the application was expressly for temporary, interim relief.
The ministry wants the application for an order suspending the procurement process and/or preventing the signing of the contract to be dismissed.