Court rejects bid to jail gov't officials for contempt
Innocent Selatlhwa | Wednesday August 5, 2026 06:00
Justice Tapiwa Kganyago upheld a preliminary objection raised by the respondents and found that the consortium had failed to comply with Section 7 of the State Proceedings Act before seeking contempt orders against government officials.
The applicants are G4 Civils (Pty) Ltd, Landmark Projects (Pty) Ltd, and Asphalt Botswana (Pty) Ltd, jointly constituting Tawana Joint Venture. The respondents are the Accounting Officer in the Ministry of Water and Human Settlements, Deputy Permanent Secretaries Boikhutso Botlhole and Nchidzi Mmolawa, and the Attorney General.
The latest application arose after Tawana JV accused government of failing to comply with previous High Court and Court of Appeal orders relating to the water project intended to serve Kgalagadi North and Charles Hill constituencies.
The dispute dates back to the cancellation of the tender award by the Public Procurement Tribunal. Tawana JV successfully challenged that decision before the High Court, where Justice Zein Kebonang set aside the Tribunal’s decision. Government later appealed, but the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court judgment and directed that contract placement be effected within 21 days under Regulation 68(2) of the Public Procurement Regulations, 2023.
Believing the government had failed to comply with that order, the consortium returned to court seeking to have the respondents committed for contempt. Before the merits of the application could be argued, the respondents raised several points in limine. Amongst them was that the application was premature because the procedure prescribed under Section 7 of the State Proceedings Act had not been followed. Justice Kganyago agreed.
The judge explained that where government fails to comply with a court order, Section 7 requires the court to report the matter for the orders of government. If the order remains unsatisfied, a further period of three months must pass from the date of that report before execution may issue. According to the ruling, although the Court of Appeal had directed that contract placement be made within 21 days, there was no evidence that the court had made the report contemplated by Section 7. “In casu, there is no report of the Court, and the applicants make no mention of any report having been made by the Court in accordance with Section 7,” Justice Kganyago ruled.
She further held that contempt proceedings amount to a form of execution of a court order.
“Accordingly, any attempt to execute the judgment, and contempt of court is a form of execution, is premature and therefore incompetent,” she ruled.
Having reached that conclusion, the judge said there was no need to determine the government's second preliminary point challenging the court's jurisdiction.
She consequently upheld the preliminary objection based on Section 7 of the State Proceedings Act, dismissed the contempt application and ordered Tawana Joint Venture to pay the respondents’ costs.
The applicants were represented by Jeremiah Tladi and Co whilst government was represented by Deputy Attorney General Joao Carlos Salbany.