CIVIL PRACTICE – REQUIREMENTS FOR URGENCY AND INTERIM RELIEF TO STAY OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF CHALLENGED DECISION

CIVIL PRACTICE – REQUIREMENTS FOR URGENCY AND INTERIM RELIEF TO STAY OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF CHALLENGED DECISION

Whereas the Review Panel had ordered the suspension of an award of a tender for catering services to government school hostels and directed the applicant Ministry to re-evaluate the process, the Ministry applied for the review and setting aside of that decision which was to be heard in the normal course. The Ministry further approached the court on urgent basis for interim relief to stay the operation and execution of that decision pending the consideration and determination of the application for review and setting aside of that decision.

The second respondent whom the Review Panel found was in many instances the lowest bidder and should have been nominated as a successful bidder, opposed the application.

USIKU J, had to only consider whether the matter was urgent and whether the applicant was entitled to the interim relief sought, and held that the applicant met the requirements of urgency and interim interdict and was therefore entitled to the relief sought. In deciding that, the learned Judge stated that:

1. Rule 73 which governs urgent applications requires an applicant to set out explicitly the circumstances which he/she avers render the matter urgent and the reasons why he/she claims he/she could not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course. The court was satisfied with the reason proffered by the ministry that if the ruling of the Review Panel was not stayed, the performance of some 63 000 leaners in government school hostels would be negatively impacted.
2. The requirements of an interim interdict are, prima facie right; a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, if the interim relief is not granted; that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the interim interdict; and, the lack of another satisfactory or adequate remedy in the circumstances. The court was satisfied that these requirements were met.

Minister of Education v The Review Panel NAHCMD 8 September 2022