…as Tayob’s company lands “questionable” M345k Central Park rehabilitation contract
Moorosi Tsiane
THE Maseru City Council (MCC) has been accused of unlawfully cancelling the Central Park rehabilitation tender before allegedly hand-picking Revolution for Prosperity (RFP) Moselinyane legislator Tommy Ashraff Tayob’s company for the M345 000 project.
A High Court application alleges that the Council abandoned a lawful procurement process without justification before awarding part of the Maseru Central Park Aquatic Rehabilitation Project to Tozzn Transport, a company the applicant claims is owned by Mr Tayob.
The applicant further argues that, as a sitting Member of Parliament, Mr Tayob is prohibited by law from contracting with the government.
Mr Tayob won the Moselinyane Constituency under the RFP banner in the 2022 general elections.
In the latest court challenge, SMEC South Africa, SECO Project Managers and Land Survey and Engineering Joint Venture, is seeking an order declaring MCC’s decision to cancel and withdraw its tender unlawful, irrational, procedurally unfair and of no legal force or effect.
The joint venture, represented by project engineer Lebamang Jane, also wants the High Court to nullify MCC’s decision to appoint Tozzn Transport as the contractor and to restrain the council from re-advertising the disputed tender.
Maseru Town Clerk ‘Moea Makhakhe, MCC and Attorney General Rapelang Motsieloa are cited as the first, second and third respondents respectively.
According to Mr Jane, MCC first invited bids on 3 June 2025 for the design and supervision of the Maseru Central Park Aquatic Rehabilitation Project, which aims to transform the park into a modern aquatic facility complete with water slides.
“On or about 3 June 2025, the second respondent issued an invitation to tender for the design and supervision of works for the Maseru Central Park Aquatic Rehabilitation Project, inviting eligible and qualified consulting firms to submit technical and financial proposals for the rehabilitation of Maseru Central Park into a modern aquatic park with water slides.
“On or about 16 July 2025, the applicant submitted its tender proposal in accordance with the advertised requirements. During the opening held on the same date following the closing time of 1200hrs, submissions were recorded from ABK and a joint venture comprising SMEC South Africa, SECO Project Managers and Land Survey and Engineering,” Mr Jane states in court papers.
He said the tender was later re-advertised and the joint venture again submitted its proposal, this time emerging as the only responsive bidder.
“Subsequently, and without any formal notification, hearing and/or lawful justification to compliant bidders, the tender was re-advertised. The applicant again submitted its proposal and was the only bidder that submitted a responsive tender.
“This fact materially strengthens the applicant’s legitimate expectation that the procurement process would be concluded fairly, transparently and in accordance with the law.”
Mr Jane further stated that in November 2025, MCC invited the joint venture to the opening of the financial proposal after informing it that it had successfully passed the technical evaluation stage.
He argues that this created a legitimate expectation that the procurement process would proceed to its lawful conclusion.
However, he said that expectation was shattered when the joint venture received a letter dated 25 February 2026 from Procurement Committee Secretary, Theko Jankie, informing it that the tender had been cancelled without providing detailed reasons.
“The cancellation, which was made without providing any substantive or particularised reasons, was arbitrary, procedurally unfair and legally unsustainable,” he submits.
Mr Jane contends that Mr Makhakhe’s failure to provide reasons for cancelling the tender constitutes a material procedural irregularity.
“The respondents’ failure to notify bidders of the re-advertisement, coupled with the absence of a reasoned cancellation decision, constitutes a material procedural irregularity and is susceptible to judicial review.
“The conduct of Mr Makhakhe was unfair and lacked transparency, competitiveness and accountability.”
He further alleges that despite cancelling the design tender, MCC proceeded to appoint contractors for the construction phase of the same project.
“Such conduct is technically indefensible and legally irregular, as it disregards the fundamental requirement that construction must be preceded by a duly completed and approved design phase.”
Mr Jane also claims the respondents violated the applicant’s constitutional and socio-economic rights and ignored essential engineering and statutory requirements, including topographical surveys, geotechnical investigations, environmental impact assessments, engineering designs and bills of quantities.
He further alleges that the applicant later discovered that Tozzn Transport had been issued with a purchase order worth M345 000 on 15 January 2026.
“It later came to the applicant’s awareness that the respondents issued Tozzn Transport with a purchase order of M345 000 on 15 January 2026, a company that belongs to a Member of Parliament prohibited by law from contracting with government, whereas procurement regulations require that any procurement exceeding M150 000 be subjected to an open and competitive tender process.”
Mr Jane further argues that construction has already commenced without approved engineering designs or valid building permits, creating a foreseeable risk to public safety and nearby infrastructure.
“The construction activities have commenced and are continuing in the absence of approved engineering designs and valid building permits, constituting unlawful conduct and creating an immediate and foreseeable risk of landslides and incidental dangers to public safety and adjacent infrastructure, including BEDCO offices, the Stadium Food Court, Moposo House and other developments along Kingsway.”
He maintains that MCC failed to comply with procurement laws and that the cancellation of the tender was unlawful, irrational, unreasonable and deliberately prejudicial to the applicant.
According to the court papers, the applicant first wrote to MCC demanding accountability over what it described as the unlawful cancellation and irregular procurement process, but the demand was rejected, prompting the court application.
The applicant is asking the High Court to declare the cancellation unlawful, compel MCC to proceed with financial negotiations and, because it was allegedly the only responsive bidder, award it the contract by default.
Post Views: 139
