A BULAWAYO security company contracted by Mpilo Central Hospital has been granted an interdict barring the State Procurement Board (SPB) from terminating its services.
SILAS NKALA STAFF REPORTER
Manifest Security (PVT) Ltd last month filed an urgent High Court chamber application seeking an order compelling the SPB and Mpilo from terminating its contract after adverts were flighted inviting tenders to provide the hospital with security.
Bulawayo High Court judge Justice Nokuthula Moyo last week granted Manifest an interim relief ordering Mpilo Hospital and the SPB to halt the tender process.
The order came amid indications that Mpilo Hospital also owes the same security company more than $490 000 as payment for its services.
In his founding affidavit, Manifest Security managing director Ernest Makandigona Shora indicated that the application was for urgent relief against unreasonable and unfair administrative action by the two respondents.
Shora said sometime in 2012 the SPB invited tenders for the provision of security services at Mpilo Hospital and Manifest Security was one of the companies who placed bids.
The SPB awarded Modern Security the tender due to its lowest bid, but Manifest contested the outcome at the Administrative Court.
- 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
In a judgment on August 28 2012, the Administrative Court upheld Manifest Security’s application and awarded it the tender, but Modern appealed to the Supreme Court and its appeal was dismissed with costs on September 18 2012.
Shora said following the Supreme Court ruling, Manifest Security commenced its contractual obligations with Mpilo Hospital in February 2013.
“From February 2013 to date, the applicant has performed its contractual obligations of providing security services to second respondent,” he said.
While Manifest continued to religiously provide its services, Shora said Mpilo hospital had not fully complied with its contractual obligation to pay for the services rendered.
“For the period from February 2013 to January 9 2014 the second respondent made only payments to the applicant leaving accumulated arrears totalling $493 801,67,” he said.
He said Manifest Security made several appeals to the hospital to no avail.
Shora said failure by Mpilo Hospital to pay Manifest had resulted in the company failing to fully pay its security guards.
“The salary arrears have generated acrimony between the applicant and its workers and the industry trade union,” he submitted.
“Amid such challenges caused by second respondent, the applicant has adopted a constructive approach of not resorting to litigation against the second respondent considering that it’s a government institution.”
Shora said in November 2013, Manifest Security received a letter dated November 18 written by the chief executive officer of Mpilo Hospital Lawrence Mantiziba advising the company that the hospital had sought authority from the SPB to advertise for new security services providers for 2014.
The hospital advertised the tender for security services on November 22 for the period February 1, 2014 to January 31, 2015. The closing date for the tender is this Friday.
“To date the applicant has not received the notice for intention to terminate contract between the two parties,” Shora submitted.
He said Mpilo Hospital wanted to terminate Manifest’s contract unlawfully and that constituted unfair and unreasonable administrative action which adversely affects the applicant’s rights, interests and legitimate expectations.
Manifest employs 150 security guards as part of its commitment to the contract.
“If the second respondent intends to terminate the contract between the parties and has good reasons for so doing, the applicant has legitimate expectations to be given a reasonable notice so that the applicant can in turn give reasonable notice to its security guards of intention to down size its operations and personnel after termination of the contract with second respondent,” Shora said.
