NO.: A 145/2009
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF NAMIBIA
In the matter
CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL ROAD
Heard on: 2010
Delivered on: 2010
AJ:  I am satisfied that the Applicant
has made out a case for urgency in the sense that I find that in the
circumstances of this matter and subsequent to the 20th
of April 2010, the Applicant acted with reasonable promptitude in
bringing this Application, taking into account the sequence of events
which unfolded subsequent to the letter annexed in as 8 to the
founding papers, the subsequent informal communication between the
legal practitioners, which occurred on the 3rd
of May, the formal notification of the decision on the 7th
of May 2010 and the bringing of the Application on the 14th
of May 2010.
said that, I took into account also when arriving at this decision,
the Tender invitation, the terms of the Tender invitation annexed as
4, in which it was clearly indicated to the Tenderers such as the
Applicant, that, should they not be contacted within three weeks of
the closing date, that they should consider their Application as
having been unsuccessful.
aspect of the case, I believe was neutralized, by the subsequent
actions, on behalf of 1st
Respondent in which it was held out to the Applicant for the
following months, up to the decision of the 20th
of April 2010 that the Tender was still under consideration.
I cannot agree with the submissions that the cause for urgency arose
within three weeks after the closing date of the Tender.
also find that the Applicant has satisfied the requirements of Rule
6(12)(b) in that it has also addressed the second leg required
namely, to indicate that it cannot be afforded redress at a
subsequent hearing in due course, in this case being Review
proceedings launched in terms of Rule 53 in terms of the Rules of the
High Court in the normal event.
my ruling on the aspect of urgency, I then also find that, at least
on a prima facie
basis, the Applicant has satisfied me that it is entitled to the
interim orders it seeks. In this regard, I find
at least on a prima facie
basis, that the Applicant was entitled to a fair administrative
process and that such administrative process was at least on a prima
facie basis infringed in at least one aspect,
namely that the Applicant was not afforded the opportunity to address
Council of the 1st
Respondent on the aspect of cancellation before that decision was
the premises, I make the following order:
a Rule Nisi
is hereby issued pending the outcome of the Review proceedings
instituted in terms of this Application and returnable on the date
of the hearing of the said Review proceedings, calling upon the
Respondents to show cause why an order in terms of prayers 2 and 3
of Part B of the Notice of Motion should not be granted.
I also order that
prayers 1.1 and 1.2 of part A of the Notice of Motion operate as
interim orders with immediate effect, pending the outcome and
finalisation of the said Review proceedings.
What I have
forgotten to mention is that, that the order referred to in
paragraph 1.1 of Part A of the Notice of Motion is one as amended.
ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: Adv.
by: MB De Klerk
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: Adv.
by: Conradie &