Staff Reporter
The High Court has thrown out an application by Pamo Trading Enterprises (Pty) Ltd. This brings an end to its bid to revive a controversial government school feeding tender that had already been cancelled by procurement authorities, in a ruling that reinforces the strict limits of procurement law in Namibia.
The case stems from a long-running dispute over a government school feeding tender involving the supply of foodstuffs to government school hostels across the country.
The tender has been in and out of litigation for years, with earlier legal battles resulting in the original award being set aside after irregularities were challenged, forcing the Central Procurement Board of Namibia to revisit the process.
However, delays in finalising the re-evaluation of bids and the expiry of bid validity periods later created a legal deadlock that ultimately led to the cancellation of the entire process.
In a judgment delivered on 1 July 2026, deputy judge president Theo Prinsloo ruled that the procurement process had legally collapsed once the bid validity period expired and could not be resurrected through court intervention or administrative instruction.
The ruling found that once the original award was set aside, there was no longer a valid procurement framework that could sustain the process beyond the statutory timelines.
Pamo Trading had approached the High Court seeking to overturn the Central Procurement Board of Namibia’s decision of 5 December 2023, which formally cancelled the tender.
The company argued that the cancellation was unlawful and unreasonable, insisting that earlier rulings had directed the CPBN to re-evaluate the bids rather than terminate the process.
It further claimed that the expiry of the bid validity period should not be used as justification to end the tender, arguing that the delays were caused by the procurement authority itself.
But that argument was rejected outright.
Prinsloo held that although administrative bodies are generally discouraged from benefiting from their own delays, such a principle cannot override clear statutory limits.
Once the bid validity period lapses, the procurement process loses legal force, leaving no bids capable of acceptance and no authority to make an award.
The judge further stressed that setting aside the original award rendered it void from the beginning, meaning it could not be relied upon to sustain any ongoing rights or obligations between bidders and the state.
As a result, there was nothing left for the CPBN to “revive” even if it had wanted to comply with earlier review orders.
Pamo’s legal team had insisted that the CPBN was bound to continue the process in line with previous directives, arguing that cancelling the tender undermined judicial authority and fairness to bidders who had already invested time and resources.
However, this interpretation was dismissed, with the ruling stating that a court order cannot extend administrative powers beyond what the law allows.
“A court cannot confer jurisdiction where it has been extinguished by statute,” the judgment emphasized, effectively shutting down the argument that prior litigation could keep the tender alive indefinitely.
The ruling also noted that procurement laws are designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and equal treatment of bidders through strict timelines.
Allowing expired tenders to be revived, the judge warned, would open the door to uncertainty and unfairness in public procurement processes.
In addition, it was observed that the contract in question related to a time-sensitive service period that had already elapsed, making any attempt to reinstate the tender practically meaningless.
With no legal basis to challenge the cancellation, the application was dismissed in its entirety, and the company was ordered to pay costs, including fees for one instructing and two instructed counsels.
