21 hours agoAppeal Court hands Pro-Serve major contract victory

Pro-Serve Consulting Botswana has secured a significant legal victory after the Court of Appeal overturned a High Court order that had frozen funds linked to the Modipane-Mabalane Road project and restricted the company from managing aspects of the contract. In a judgment delivered on Friday, the Court of Appeal ruled that Tau Grading & Building Construction failed to satisfy the legal requirements for an anti-dissipation order and had not shown exceptional circumstances to justify approaching the High Court on an ex parte basis, where the opposing parties were not initially heard. The appeal was brought by Pro-Serve, Absa Bank Botswana and Unik Construction Engineering after the High Court granted Tau Grading an interim order in November 2025.

The order prevented the release of project-related funds and barred Pro-Serve and Unik from interfering with Tau Grading’s claimed possession of the construction site. The dispute centres on the Modipane-Mabalane Road project, where Pro-Serve was appointed by the Botswana government as development manager under the Development Manager Model. Following disagreements over the contract, Pro-Serve terminated its agreement with Tau Grading, prompting the contractor to refer the matter to adjudication.

Tau Grading later sought urgent court intervention after learning that Unik Construction was mobilising to continue work on the project, arguing that it risked losing possession of the site and that project funds could be dissipated before its claims were resolved. Writing for the Court of Appeal, Justice of Appeal Isaac Lesetedi said the contractor had failed to demonstrate that Pro-Serve or Unik intended to hide, transfer or dispose of assets to frustrate any future judgment, which is the central requirement for an anti-dissipation order. The court also criticised the growing use of ex parte applications, stressing that courts should only grant such relief in exceptional cases.

[paywall]

“Both sides must be heard before any adverse order or finding is made,” Justice Lesetedi said. The court further found that Tau Grading had not made full disclosure when seeking the urgent order. It said the contractor failed to adequately place before the High Court the history of the contractual dispute, including Pro-Serve’s position that the contract had already been terminated and another contractor could be appointed to complete the project.

In addition, the Court of Appeal ruled that the interim order had lapsed because it was not properly extended following several postponements. The court set aside the High Court order, discharged the rule nisi and ordered Tau Grading to pay the costs of the application. The ruling restores Pro-Serve’s ability to manage the project without the restrictions imposed by the interim order while reaffirming that extraordinary remedies such as anti-dissipation interdicts should only be granted where clear evidence justifies their

[/paywall]