The Eswatini Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (ESPPRA) has asked the High Court to dismiss the Eswatini Consumer Forum’s (ECOF) urgent application challenging the award of the Central Bank of Eswatini’s (CBE) headquarters contract.
The entity is arguing that the case is a blatant abuse of court process intended to advance the interests of unsuccessful bidders rather than protect the public.
In its preliminary answering affidavit filed before the High Court, ESPPRA Chief Executive Officer Vusi Matsebula contended that ECOF had no legal standing to institute the proceedings, created its own urgency by waiting about eight months before approaching the court, and is attempting to frustrate the implementation of an important national project.
Matsebula further argued that the application had no legal foundation and should be dismissed with punitive costs on the attorney-and-own-client scale against ECOF’s deponent personally and, alternatively, against the organisation’s directors.
“The present application is clearly an abuse of the process of the court to advance the interests of the unsuccessful tenderers, not to obtain legal redress,” Matsebula states in the affidavit.
He further argued that the application was intended to frustrate and delay the construction project, adding that the court should protect its own processes by dismissing the matter with punitive costs.
The affidavit formed part of ESPPRA’s objections in the matter in which ECOF seeks to challenge the procurement process that resulted in the award of the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract for the construction of the CBE’s new headquarters to Ingcebo Joint Venture.
Matsebula argued that ECOF was neither a participant in the procurement process nor a party to the EPC contract.
He told the court that the consumer organisation had no direct, substantial or proprietary interest in either the procurement process or the execution of the contract and therefore lacks the legal standing required to seek an interdict.
RELATED | CBE E2.79BN TENDER: ‘Consumer Forum only on paper’
“ECOF is best described as a busy body involving itself in issues that do not concern it,” he stated.
He added that ECOF had failed to demonstrate any irreparable harm it would suffer should the interdict not be granted.
According to the affidavit, ECOF had also admitted that it had not yet obtained a resolution authorising the institution of the proceedings, further undermining its standing before the court.
Although ECOF relied on public interest litigation, Matsebula argued that merely invoking public interest does not entitle an organisation with no direct interest to interfere in contractual disputes.
He submitted that the High Court should discourage litigants who involve themselves in disputes in which they have no direct or substantial interest.
On urgency, ESPPRA argues that the application was brought far too late.
Matsebula said on September 10, 2025, CBE issued its intention to award the tender and afforded unsuccessful bidders a 10-working-day period within which to request debriefings, lodge procurement complaints or object to the proposed award in terms of Section 47 of the Procurement Act.
According to ESPPRA’s records, no complaints or objections were received from any unsuccessful bidder during that period.
Thereafter, on October 9, 2025, the Central Bank publicly announced the award of the contract to Ingcebo Joint Venture.
The results, together with the scores achieved by all bidders, were subsequently published in various newspapers between October 10 and October 26, 2025, in line with principles of transparency and accountability.
Matsebula argued that ECOF therefore had knowledge, or at the very least ought reasonably to have had knowledge, of both the award and the reasons behind it during October 2025.
“If the applicant was dissatisfied with the award, it ought to have taken legal action then or approached the second respondent as a procuring entity for internal review,” he said.
Instead, he said ECOF waited approximately eight months before approaching the court on an urgent basis.
The affidavit further revealed that by March, ECOF had already raised questions regarding the award with the Construction Industry Council (CIC), yet still failed to institute legal proceedings.
Matsebula argued that any urgency now relied upon is entirely self-created.
He also criticised ECOF for serving respondents with voluminous court papers on less than 48 hours’ notice despite the complexity of the procurement process and the significant contractual and financial implications involved.
“ECOF cannot, after eight full months, come to court on short notice to challenge something that occurred in September and October 2025,” he stated.
He dismissed ECOF’s explanation that it required meticulous care to prepare the application, arguing that such an explanation cannot justify an eight-month delay.
ESPPRA further disputed ECOF’s claim that the project involves public funds.
