Quartile loses urgent bid over TransNamib debt tender

The High court has struck from the roll an urgent application brought by Quartile Investment against TransNamib, challenging the legality of a recent procurement process for debt collection services awarded to RedForce debt management. High Court Judge Thomas Masuku ruled the matter lacked urgency and ordered Quartile to pay the costs of the application.Quartile Investment, a known debt collection firm, alleged that its exclusion from a tender process initiated by TransNamib was unlawful and violated the Public Procurement Act. The firm argued that the contract, awarded to RedForce, was granted without proper advertisement or transparent procedures, infringing constitutional protections, specifically Article 18, which guarantees fair administrative action and equal protection before the law.Quartile initially sought to interdict the execution of the contract awarded to the second respondent, arguing that the procurement process was flawed, biased, and unlawful. It maintained that, had the process been transparent and compliant, it would have been a legitimate contender.Quartile's legal team argued that Quartile had a vested interest in the tender, having met all the criteria to participate. They claimed the exclusion was unjustified and unlawful, in breach of procurement procedures stipulated under the Public Procurement Act.Citing the slow pace of conventional court processes, estimated to take six months to a year, Quartile sought urgent intervention to suspend the contract’s execution. The firm argued that ongoing performance under the contract could render any eventual relief meaningless.They further alleged procedural irregularities, including a failure to advertise properly and to consider their bid, despite their good standing in the industry. The process, they contended, was opaque and biased, violating their constitutional rights.In response, TransNamib Holdings and RedForce Debt Management, the second respondent, opposed the application on grounds that it did not meet the threshold for urgency. They argued that Quartile was aware of the procurement timeline but delayed acting, making the urgency self-created.They further asserted that Quartile failed to exhaust internal remedies before approaching the court, as required by law.On substance, TransNamib and RedForce defended the procurement process as lawful and compliant with all applicable regulations. They challenged Quartile’s standing, disputing its credentials as a recognised debt collector eligible for the tender. No unlawful conduct occurred, they maintained, and the contract awarded was legitimate.Masuku assessed both parties' arguments and highlighted the stringent requirements for urgent applications. Applicants, it noted, must demonstrate clear factual grounds for urgency and show they cannot obtain adequate relief through normal procedures.While Quartile claimed potential irreparable harm, the court found this alone insufficient to justify urgent relief. Quartile’s delay in acting, particularly between raising concerns and filing the application, undermined its urgency claim.Citing the landmark Keya v Chief of the Defence Force ruling, Masuku reaffirmed that urgency must not be self-inflicted and that applicants must act promptly if they seek extraordinary judicial intervention. Quartile’s delay, he concluded, was inexcusable.“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 even, 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,” Masuku said.“In the premises, I find it unnecessary to consider the other legal issues that arise because failure to overcome the hurdle of urgency, in this matter, renders it superfluous for the court to consider the other relief sought at this point. As a result, it is unnecessary to consider the question whether or not the application failed to exhaust domestic remedies provided by the Act and the question of whether or not this is an appropriate case in which to grant an interim interdict,” he added.Striking the matter from the roll, Masuku ruled that the application is not urgent and is accordingly struck from the roll with costs, adding that Quartile’s failure to act with due speed had compromised its entitlement to extraordinary relief.nikanor@nmh-hub.com.na

Quartile loses urgent bid over TransNamib debt tender

Comments

Namibian Sun 2025-07-23

Please login to leave a comment

Quartile loses urgent bid over TransNamib debt tender

Comments

Namibian Sun 2025-07-23

Please login to leave a comment

Login