Construction titans clash as DM model crumbles
Staff Writer | Wednesday December 3, 2025 06:00
On November 12, the High Court issued an interim order restraining the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure and Absa Bank from paying any funds to Pro-Serve Consulting arising from the Modipane–Mabalane road project. The order also restricted Pro-Serve, the ministry, and Unik Construction from contaminating the construction project or dispossessing Tau Grading from exclusive possession of the construction site. This was after Tau Grading launched an ex parte urgent application at the High Court, seeking an anti-dissipation order preserving funds deposited by the ministry into the Pro-Serve account at Absa Bank.
Pro-Serve engaged Tau Grading in October 2024 for the discharge of works on the Modipane–Mabalane road project. The project was funded by the Ministry of Transport under the DM model. Things took a turn for the worse in September, when Tau Grading suspended construction works on account of non-payment. In response, Pro-Serve instructed Tau Grading to continue discharging its duties or risk being construed to be non-compliant. The development manager cited a clause in its contract with Tau Grading, which states that the contractor will not be paid until corresponding payment has been made by the government.
“It was a material term of the agreement that payment to Tau Grading was contingent on receipt of funds from the ministry. Tau Grading is effectively disgruntled by the contingency to which it had agreed,” argued Pro-Serve in papers before the court.
In response, Tau Grading issued a notice to suspend works due to a lack of funds and the uncertainty of payments from the ministry. On September 12, Pro-Serve wrote to Tau Grading, accusing them of non-compliance and unauthorised demobilisation. The development manager would later slap Tau Grading with a letter of termination, immediately appointing Unik Construction as a replacement contractor.
Tau Grading then declared a dispute, and the two parties appointed Judge David Newman as an adjudicator. In the dispute, Tau Grading challenged the propriety of termination and demanded outstanding payments of P10 million for work done. The contractor also accused Pro-Serve of crippling progress by starving the project of funding.
Whilst the dispute resolution was ongoing, Pro-Serve instructed Unik Construction to mobilise resources to the project site. Meanwhile, Tau Grading insists that it retains exclusive possession of the project site, on which it has employed 90 employees and deployed over 65 plant and equipment machinery.
In its application, the contractor revealed that Pro-Serve does not have any properties on site and no known properties in Botswana. Tau Grading also accused Pro-Serve of trying to evade payment by appointing Unik Construction to take over construction works.
“There is no valid reason why Pro-Serve is not paying Tau Grading, yet it continues to insist that work must be carried out. Tau Grading has no other security aside from freezing the Pro-Serve bank accounts,” argued Tau Grading.
The contractor further justified the ex parte urgent application by saying forewarning Pro-Serve and Unik Construction would have frustrated the dispute resolution process and ignited them into advance disobedience.
On Friday, Pro-Serve Consulting will approach the High Court seeking the court order to be set aside. The development manager argues that Tau Grading’s ex parte application was an 'abuse of court process' and a 'debt collection exercise' veiled as an anti-dissipation application.
The case brings into focus concerns that were raised by a report on the review of the DM model, which highlighted flaws such as flouting of procurement procedures, cost overruns, and sidelining of citizen contractors.