Tawana JV seeks court to compel DCEC, PPRA to act

Mpho Mokwape | Monday June 1, 2026 06:00

The application was filed by G4 Civils (Pty) Ltd, Landmark Projects (Pty) Ltd, and Asphalt Botswana (Pty) Ltd, collectively operating as Tawana Joint Venture.

The joint venture is asking the court to join DCEC Director General, Bothale Makgekgenene, PPRA Chief Executive Officer Tumelo Motsumi, and the PPRA itself as respondents in the proceedings.

The companies are also seeking an order compelling the respondents to disclose a wide range of documents related to the suspension of a procurement process that had already been the subject of a High Court judgment and a Court of Appeal ruling.

According to court papers, the dispute follows a February 24, 2025, High Court judgment in favour of Tawana Joint Venture.

In that ruling, the High Court ordered that the companies were entitled to contract placement within 21 days under Regulation 68(2) of the Public Procurement Regulations. The Court of Appeal later upheld the judgment on March 27, 2026, following the respondents' appeal.

Despite the dismissal of the appeal, Tawana Joint Venture says government officials failed to comply with the court orders. The companies later filed contempt proceedings against the Ministry of Water and Human Settlement and related parties.

In the latest application, the joint venture claims that after the Court of Appeal ruling, officials took steps designed to frustrate implementation of the judgment. According to an affidavit filed by Kagiso Moremi on behalf of the applicants, the Ministry’s Accounting Officer issued a letter on May 7, 2026, purporting to suspend the procurement process.

The affidavit states that the suspension was allegedly based on instructions from the DCEC and approval from the PPRA. The applicants argue that the legality of those actions can only be tested if the relevant documents are disclosed. The joint venture is asking the court to compel DCEC, PPRA, the Attorney General’s Chambers, and the Ministry to provide full discovery of all records related to the suspension decision.

The requested records include correspondence, internal memoranda, emails, meeting minutes, forensic reports, investigative records, and communications relating to the procurement process and alleged irregularities involving the tender. The companies also want disclosure of documents supporting DCEC’s request for authority to suspend the procurement process under Section 107(4) of the Public Procurement Act, 2021.

Under that section of the law, a public oversight agency investigating a procurement process may not suspend the process without the PPRA's prior written approval. The application also seeks disclosure of records showing whether the PPRA board authorised the approval allegedly granted to DCEC. Among the documents requested are “all resolutions taken by PPRA in relation to the request for suspension authorisation” and minutes of meetings leading to those decisions.

The applicants further seek disclosure of all communication between DCEC, PPRA, the Attorney General’s Chambers, and the Ministry regarding the procurement process, the suspension, and the ongoing contempt proceedings.

In the supporting affidavit, Moremi states that the documents are necessary for the fair determination of the contempt application. “The applicants will not know the identity, authority, and instructions of the actors said to have authored the post-judgment suspension,” Moremi said in court papers.

He further argued that the applicants were being forced to litigate “blindfolded” without access to documents they say are required under procurement laws. “The Applicants will not have sight of the procurement record which they are entitled by statute to inspect,” the affidavit states.

The applicants claim the documents are part of the official procurement record under Sections 82 and 107 of the Public Procurement Act and relevant regulations under the Public Procurement Regulations of 2023.

They argue that disclosure cannot lawfully be withheld because the procurement process had already been the subject of court orders.

The joint venture also argues that the DCEC Director General and the PPRA officials have a “direct and substantial interest” in the matter because they allegedly participated in the suspension process.

According to the affidavit, the DCEC’s alleged involvement in directing the suspension means the legality of its actions will be central to the contempt proceedings.

The affidavit states that the applicants intend to seek further relief against the newly proposed respondents, including possible contempt sanctions.

“The Director General, in her personal capacity, is sought to be joined to the contempt application as a further contemnor,” the affidavit states.

The applicants say similar relief may also be pursued against the PPRA Chief Executive Officer.

The application also seeks leave to amend and supplement the original contempt application once discovery is completed.

The proposed amendments would include references to several developments that occurred after the original court orders, including DCEC correspondence dated May 12, 2026, a Section 107(4) request dated April 27, 2026, and PPRA approval allegedly issued on May 6, 2026.

The applicants request that, after all documents are disclosed, they be granted 10 court days to file amended papers before the respondents file answering affidavits.

In the affidavit, Moremi accuses the respondents of engaging in “litigation by ambush” by withholding documents while preparing a defence to the contempt application.

“The cumulative effect of those steps is to ring-fence the Respondents’ non-compliance with the judgment,” the affidavit states.

The applicants argue that allowing respondents to continue withholding the records would undermine the authority of the courts and the integrity of public procurement processes.

The affidavit further claims that a failure to grant the relief could create a precedent in which government entities defeat court orders by taking new regulatory actions after judgments have already been issued.

The applicants also argue that refusal to disclose the records would violate their constitutional right to a fair hearing under Section 10 of the Constitution.

According to the filing, the companies continue to suffer commercial prejudice because they have not yet received the contract placement awarded by the courts.

The application asks the court to order all respondents to pay costs on an attorney-and-client scale.

At the time of filing, no answering affidavits from the respondents had been included in the court papers.