BULAWAYO High Court judge Justice Maxwell Takuva has dismissed an application by safari operator, Glenulas Trading (Pvt) Ltd to order Beitbridge Rural District Council (BRDC) to rescind the tender for the lease of Beitbridge West concession area awarded to Nengasha Safaris.
BY SILAS NKALA
In its application, Glenulas cited BRDC and Nengasha Safaris as respondents, claiming the initial tender process was flawed. But Justice Takuva last week said it was clear that Glenulas had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of an application for review against the decision of the council should it be required to pursue the matter.
“It is trite that where there is an existing remedy with the same result for the protection of the applicant [Glenulas], an interdict will not be granted. An application for review if prosecuted successfully can be a satisfactory remedy to the applicant. For these reasons, the application has no merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs,” he ruled.
Glenulas Trading (Pvt) Ltd is believed to be linked to State Security minister Kembo Mohadi’s family and during the tender process it competed with Nengasha Safaris.
The company had claimed that the tender process was flawed as council had failed to open the tender bids in the presence of the tenderers and the public.
“When the tender closed applicant [Glenulas] alleged that notwithstanding the advertisement all that was done was to open the receptacle in which the tenders had been deposited. The tenders themselves were not opened to allow their inspection by tenderers and members of the public as transparency and fair administration would have necessitated,” Glenulas said through its lawyers.
In response, both the council and Nengasha Safaris opposed the move, saying the urgency was self-created in that Glenulas had acted almost two months later.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
“The applicant has no prima facie right against the first respondent that it reasonably seeks to protect by bringing this application under the seal of urgency,” BRDC said.
