THE United Bulawayo Hospitals (UBH) security tender war has taken another turn, as Cobra Security Company filed a Supreme Court appeal challenging the Administrative Court ruling, which nullified its contract with the health institution in favour of Nokel Security Company.
SILAS NKALA STAFF REPORTER
Nokel Security had filed an application seeking an order stopping Cobra Security, which had been awarded the tender below stipulated bidding price from assuming duties at UBH, an order which was issued by the Administrative Court.
But Cobra Security on Monday filed an appeal against the Administrative Court ruling, indicating that judge Justice Herbert Mandeya erred in passing judgment.
In an appeal dated March 2, Nokel indicated that the court aquo erred and misdirected itself in failing to make a definitive ruling on the issue which was placed before it due to failure by its respondent to cite UBH, a legal entity in the proceedings.
“The court aquo erred and misdirected itself by failing to make a ruling on the issue which was argued before it vis-a-vis the fact that SI 180/2010 and its successor in title 136/2014 are ultra vires the Principal Act in that the Private Investment and Security Guards Control Act Chapter 27:10 and Principal Regulations SI 156/2007 have no provision for the minister making regulations for prices or charges to be made in respect of services rendered by licensed security guards,” they said in their appeal.
Cobra security submitted that alternatively, the court must have referred the issue of whether the Home Affairs minister acted ultra vires the Principal Act and the Constitution of Zimbabwe in fixing minimum tariffs or charges made by registered security guards companies and whether SI 180/2010 and SI 136/2014 are ipso facto also ultra vires their enabling legislation to the Supreme Court or Constitutional Court.
“The court aquo erred and misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that the appellant charged below the minimum prescribed by SI 180/2010 when the record clearly showed the contrary,” Cobra security submitted.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
“The court aquo erred and misdirected itself in holding that the giving of a discount is tantamount to charging below the minimum prescribed by SI 180/2010.
“The Principal Act allows for discount being granted to non-profit making organisations and appellant’s bid gave UBH a discount, which is not an undercharge.
“The appellant prays that the decision by the court be set aside.”
UBH has been faced with a unique problem, with the two security companies guarding the health institution’s premises since last December.
The dilemma started after Home Guard Security’s contract expired and Cobra Security Services assumed.
Guards from the two companies were sometimes deployed at the same premises.
To add to the confusion, after Cobra Security was awarded the contract, it was accused of charging below the prescribed rates.
On realising the stand-off, Nokel Security made representations to the Administrative Court resulting in the hospital reversing its offer and reverting to the previous service provider, Home Guard Services, waiting for the matter to be resolved.
Nokel filed its appeal at the Administrative Court challenging Cobra security for violating the law by offering low charges.
The company submitted that the minimum a company could charge for offering services to the hospital was $299 184, but Cobra had charged $236 973, which is below the prescribed rate.
Administrative Court judge Justice Herbert Mandeya last week granted Nokel Security’s application indicating that the company’s appeal was upheld with costs.
