Court vindicates TransNamib over RedForce tender
The High Court has struck an urgent application by Quartile Investment from the roll after the company challenged the legality of a recent TransNamib debt collection tender awarded to RedForce Debt Management.
Judge Thomas Masuku ruled that the matter lacked urgency and ordered Quartile to pay the costs of the application.
Quartile argued that its exclusion from the procurement process violated the Public Procurement Act and infringed on its constitutional rights, specifically Article 18, which guarantees fair administrative action and equal protection before the law.
The firm claimed the contract was awarded to RedForce without proper advertisement or transparency.
It initially sought an urgent interdict to suspend execution of the contract, arguing that the process was flawed and biased. Quartile maintained that it had met all criteria and would have been a legitimate contender had the process been fair and compliant.
Urgency self-created
Arguing that normal court timelines – ranging from six months to a year – would render any eventual relief meaningless, Quartile pushed for urgent intervention.
The firm also cited alleged procedural irregularities, including failure to advertise the tender properly and failure to consider its bid, despite its standing in the debt recovery sector.
However, both TransNamib and RedForce opposed the application, arguing that the urgency was self-created.
They pointed out that Quartile had been aware of the procurement timeline but delayed taking legal action.
Moreover, they argued that the firm had failed to exhaust internal remedies before heading to court, as required by law.
On the merits, both respondents defended the process as lawful and compliant.
They also questioned Quartile’s standing, disputing its eligibility for the tender and maintaining that no unlawful conduct took place.
Argument undermined
Judge Masuku emphasised the legal threshold for urgent applications, explaining that applicants must provide clear, factual grounds for urgency and demonstrate that ordinary court procedures would be inadequate.
While Quartile warned of potential irreparable harm, the court found this claim alone was insufficient. Masuku noted that the firm’s own delay in filing the application undermined its argument for urgency.
Quoting the Keya v Chief of the Defence Force judgment, the judge said applicants must act swiftly if they seek extraordinary relief.
“The fact that the applicant [Quartile] failed to approach this court as soon as it became clear that it had an urgent case must return to haunt it. The explanation for that delay is not forthcoming or is in any event, inherently unconvincing. I am of the considered opinion that the submissions by both [TransNamib] and [RedForce] that the matter is not urgent or that the urgency was of [Quartile’s] creation, cannot be faulted,” he said.
“In the premises, I find it unnecessary to consider the other legal issues that arise because failure to overcome the hurdle of urgency... renders it superfluous for the court to consider the other relief sought at this point,” he added.
Striking the matter from the roll, Masuku ruled that Quartile’s failure to act with due speed had compromised its entitlement to extraordinary relief.
- [email protected]
Judge Thomas Masuku ruled that the matter lacked urgency and ordered Quartile to pay the costs of the application.
Quartile argued that its exclusion from the procurement process violated the Public Procurement Act and infringed on its constitutional rights, specifically Article 18, which guarantees fair administrative action and equal protection before the law.
The firm claimed the contract was awarded to RedForce without proper advertisement or transparency.
It initially sought an urgent interdict to suspend execution of the contract, arguing that the process was flawed and biased. Quartile maintained that it had met all criteria and would have been a legitimate contender had the process been fair and compliant.
Urgency self-created
Arguing that normal court timelines – ranging from six months to a year – would render any eventual relief meaningless, Quartile pushed for urgent intervention.
The firm also cited alleged procedural irregularities, including failure to advertise the tender properly and failure to consider its bid, despite its standing in the debt recovery sector.
However, both TransNamib and RedForce opposed the application, arguing that the urgency was self-created.
They pointed out that Quartile had been aware of the procurement timeline but delayed taking legal action.
Moreover, they argued that the firm had failed to exhaust internal remedies before heading to court, as required by law.
On the merits, both respondents defended the process as lawful and compliant.
They also questioned Quartile’s standing, disputing its eligibility for the tender and maintaining that no unlawful conduct took place.
Argument undermined
Judge Masuku emphasised the legal threshold for urgent applications, explaining that applicants must provide clear, factual grounds for urgency and demonstrate that ordinary court procedures would be inadequate.
While Quartile warned of potential irreparable harm, the court found this claim alone was insufficient. Masuku noted that the firm’s own delay in filing the application undermined its argument for urgency.
Quoting the Keya v Chief of the Defence Force judgment, the judge said applicants must act swiftly if they seek extraordinary relief.
“The fact that the applicant [Quartile] failed to approach this court as soon as it became clear that it had an urgent case must return to haunt it. The explanation for that delay is not forthcoming or is in any event, inherently unconvincing. I am of the considered opinion that the submissions by both [TransNamib] and [RedForce] that the matter is not urgent or that the urgency was of [Quartile’s] creation, cannot be faulted,” he said.
“In the premises, I find it unnecessary to consider the other legal issues that arise because failure to overcome the hurdle of urgency... renders it superfluous for the court to consider the other relief sought at this point,” he added.
Striking the matter from the roll, Masuku ruled that Quartile’s failure to act with due speed had compromised its entitlement to extraordinary relief.
- [email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article