Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves an appeal by Central Africa Baptist College and Seminary against Copperbelt University's decision to sell Stand No. 5880 Riverside Kitwe to G & G Bakery Limited. The University had advertised for bids for the land, with preference given to bidders who could demonstrate how their proposed development would align with national and community strategic priorities and incorporate corporate social responsibility. Both the Appellant and G & G Bakery Limited bid K1,000,000, but the University chose G & G Bakery Limited as the successful bidder despite the Appellant's claim that their bid better aligned with the advertisement's requirements. The Appellant challenged the decision through Judicial Review, alleging irrationality, illegality, procedural impropriety, and unfairness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the University's decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, there was no procedural impropriety, and the decision was not illegal.
Issues
- The court assessed if the absence of Development and Caretaker Committee minutes during the judicial review hearing constituted procedural impropriety, despite the Respondent's claim that minutes were not yet prepared.
- The court examined whether the decision to select G & G Bakery as the successful bidder was so unreasonable that no reasonable body could have made it under the Wednesbury standard, considering the advertisement's requirements for national priorities and community benefits.
- The court determined whether the Respondent's decision violated the Higher Education and University Act by failing to adhere to statutory procedures, particularly regarding the sale of university property.
Holdings
The Court of Appeal held that the Respondent's decision to choose G & G Bakery Limited as the successful bidder for Plot 5880 Riverside was not Wednesbury unreasonable, as it fell within a range of acceptable outcomes and had plausible justification. The Court also found no procedural impropriety, as the absence of the Development and Caretaker Committee minutes did not affect the trial court's decision, and the Respondent followed proper procedures. Additionally, the Court determined there was no illegality in the Respondent's decision-making process, as it was grounded in the Higher Education Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs following the event.
Remedies
The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no irrationality, illegality, or procedural impropriety in the Respondent's decision to choose G & G Bakery Limited as the successful bidder. Costs follow the event, meaning the appellant must pay the costs of the appeal.
Legal Principles
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against a judicial review application concerning Copperbelt University's land sale. The court held the decision to award the bid to G and G Bakery Limited was not Wednesbury unreasonable as it was transparent and within acceptable outcomes. Procedural impropriety was rejected despite missing committee minutes, as the process followed due procedures and fairness.
Precedent Name
- Ster Kinekor vs The Attorney General
- Derick Chitala (Secretary of the Zambia Democratic Congress) v Attorney General
- Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister of State for Civil Service
- Council of Civil Services Union v Minister for Civil Service
- Fredrick Jacob Titus Chiluba v. Attorney General
- Dean Namulya Mung'omba & 2 Others v. Peter Machungwa & 2 Others
- Nkhata and Others vs. the Attorney General
- Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines Limited vs. James Matale
- Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited vs Wednesbury Corporation
Cited Statute
Higher Education Act
Judge Name
- P.C.M. Ngulube
- M.J. Siavwapa
- F.M. Chishimba
Passage Text
- The grounds of appeal having failed on account that there was no wednesbury unreasonableness, illegality or procedural impropriety in the decision-making process by the Respondent, we accordingly dismiss the appeal.
- Paragraph 8 of the statement on Ex-parte Summons for leave to apply for Judicial Review clearly stated that the 'Applicant believes that the decision-making process which led the applicant being declared unsuccessful and G & G Baking Limited successful was clearly irrational and unreasonable....' Therefore, the appellant did challenge the decision-making process itself.
- We are of the view that the decision by the Respondent is not one which no reasonable person/tribunal could have arrived at or devoid of any plausible justification that no reasonable body of persons could have reached them. There was transparency in the decision-making process and fell within a range of possible acceptable outcomes.