TWENTY THIRD CENTURY (PRIVATE) LIMITED v MINISTER OF HIGHER AND TERTIARY EDUCATION, INNOVATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT N.O. and PROCUREMENT REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF ZIMBABWE
TenderSAP LicenseReview PanelSuspension of ProcessNon-joinder
Tags
ProcurementPublic LawJudicial Review
legislation
Statutes Cited
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act
Manpower Planning and Development Act
Zimbabwe Manpower Development Act, 1984
High Court Rules, 2021
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the preliminary points (non-joinder, propriety of application, lack of cause of action) have merit.","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Non-joinder of ZIMDEF; Compliance with Public Procurement Act; Pleadings in the application."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the first respondent was entitled to initiate a new tender process (ZPCR33-2022) while a statutory appeal regarding the previous tender (ZPCR29-2021) was still pending.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Issuance of new tender on 9 September 2022; Pending appeal on previous tender."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant is entitled to the final relief of cancellation and nullification of the tender process.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The conduct of the first respondent; The terms of the final order sought."}
{"issue_text":"Whether costs should be awarded on the attorney and client scale.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The first respondent's opposition to the application despite pending appeal."}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant sought to suspend and ultimately cancel a new tender process (ZPCR33-2022) initiated by the first respondent, arguing that it violated the procurement process and undermined a previous High Court judgment. The applicant had previously challenged a similar tender (ZPCR29-2021) on the basis of a restrictive SAP license requirement, and an appeal regarding that challenge was still pending when the new tender was issued.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases