[ad_1]
Pwani University Vice Chancellor Mohamed Rajab risks going to jail after he was found to be in contempt of a court order issued relating to a tender for the provision of security services at the institution.
The High Court ruled that the accounting officer of the university -the VC- was in contempt of orders issued on September 11 last year temporarily barring him and the institution from signing any contract with Catch Security Link Ltd in respect to the tender.
“The first interested party (Pwani University) is hereby ordered and directed to attend this court on June 2 for purposes of mitigation and sentence,” ruled Justice Eric Ogola.
The court also found that the institution and its accounting officer (Mr Rajab) were in contempt of the court orders.
The signing of the contract a day after a ruling by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) was a clear manifestation that the institution and its accounting officer acted in bad faith, the court said.
It further noted that the contract allegedly entered into between the University and Catch Security Links Ltd is null and void thus court orders issued on September 11 last year remain in force until the case filed by Guardforce Group Ltd, also a security firm, is determined.
Justice Ogola said the accounting officer’s refusal to comply with the orders was calculated to undermine the rule of law and aims at defeating the ends of justice.
“The interested parties’ contemptuous acts will not only interfere with the cause of justice but will also likely cause substantial loss to the applicant,” ruled Justice Ogola.
Guardforce Group Ltd sued the PPARB challenging its decision to dismiss a request for a review application it made regarding the tender.
It then filed an application for contempt against the VC for disobeying the court order, which temporarily stopped the signing of any contract with Catch Security Link Ltd.
Guardforce Group Ltd argued that the court had restrained the institution and the VC from signing any contract with Catch Security Links Ltd regarding the tender.
The security firm told the court that the orders were served upon PPARB, the university, the VC and Catch Security Links Ltd.
It also said that contrary to the orders, the VC and Catch Security Links Ltd proceeded to execute the contract for the provision of security services effective October 1 last year.
Guardforce Group Ltd told the court that after the signing of the contract, Catch Security Link Ltd took over the provision of security services at the institution.
It argued that the university, VC and Catch Security Links Ltd were in contempt of court orders and therefore interfering with the administration of justice.
Guardforce Group Ltd also argued that the actions of the university, the VC and Catch Security Links Ltd will not only interfere with the cause of justice but also likely cause substantial and irreparable losses to it.
The university and the VC had opposed the application arguing that following the advertisement for the tender, they received bid documents which were evaluated and the tender awarded to Catch Security Links Ltd.
They argued that PPARB having rendered its decision, the university proceeded to enter into a new contract with Catch Security Links Ltd for the provision of security services.
According to the institution, security is important thus they had to move with speed in completing the already delayed procurement service for security services.
They further argue that by the time they became aware of the orders of the court, the contract had already been duly executed.
The university and the VC told the court that they are law-abiding persons and their actions were not in any way calculated to undermine the authority of the court.
Source link
