THE Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has set aside a ruling by the Administrative Court in which it had dismissed a review application by Clovgate Elevators (Pvt) Limited challenging the decision by two State entities to call for fresh tenders.
BY TATIRA ZWINOIRA
Clovgate Elavators had applied to the Administrative Court challenging the decision of Zesa Holdings and the former State Procurement Board to call for fresh tenders after Zesa accused Clovgate of allegedly swindling them of $622 044. It lost the case.
In a ruling delivered on February 6, the Supreme Court set aside the Administrative Court’s ruling.
“In terms of section 25(3) of the Supreme Court Act [Chapter 7:13], the judgment of the Administrative Court of Zimbabwe No AC12/17 handed down on July 28, 2017 be and is, hereby, set aside on the basis that the Administrative Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for review before it,” the ruling read.
“The costs of proceedings in the Administrative Court are ordered against the appellant on the scale of legal practitioner and own client.”
In the judgment delivered by the Administrative Court of Zimbabwe on July 28, 2017, the court found that Clovgate Elevators was to dismantle, instal and commission four elevators for Zesa Holdings between August 2013 and July 2014.
This was after being awarded the tender to do so by the SPB, now the Procurement Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe.
The court found that Clovgate Elevators were paid 60% or $462 082,77 of the $930 165,54 that they charged Zesa Holdings, which was deposited into their account on October 1, 2013.
Despite receiving this payment, the court found that Clovgate failed to supply the elevators on time and only supplied one instead of all for almost a year after the deadline agreed had lapsed.
Zesa Holdings accused Clovgate Elevators of fleecing them and did not pay the balance of the money they owed and approached the SPB, which issued fresh tenders for the project .
Clovgate Elevators approached the Administrative Court to challenge this decision to seek out fresh tenders, with the ruling going against them, as the Administrative Court dismissed the application.
The Administrative Court ordered Clovgate to pay the legal costs incurred by Zesa Holdings (first respondent) and the SPB.
Clovgate Elevators appealed against the ruling.