High Court rules it has no jurisdiction in NSSA and software supplier’s US$10 million tender wrangle

A BITTER legal clash between the National Social Security Authority (NSSA) and software supplier Twenty Third Century Systems (Pvt) Ltd (TTCS) over more than US$10 million paid under a disputed tender has been shot down by the High Court, which ruled that it has no jurisdiction to determine the legality of the procurement process at the heart of the fight.

In a judgment delivered on 31 December 2025, Justice Jacob Manzunzu upheld a preliminary objection raised by TTCS, finding that disputes grounded in alleged irregularities in a tender process fall within the exclusive competence of the Administrative Court.

“The preliminary point challenging the jurisdiction of this court must succeed,” the judge ruled.

“The court hereby declines jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs.”

The decision ends two consolidated cases in which NSSA and TTCS sued each other following a fallout over a 2013 tender for the supply and implementation of a social security system. NSSA had approached the court seeking a declaratory order that the tender and the resulting agreements were unlawful for alleged non-compliance with section 7(1) and (2) of the Procurement Regulations, SI 171 of 2002, and claimed restitution of US$10 445 582 paid under the contracts. In the alternative, NSSA alleged breach of contract and sought to enforce security provided by third parties, including the execution of mortgaged properties.

TTCS strongly opposed the claim, maintaining that both the tender and the agreements were lawful and enforceable. It countered that NSSA itself breached the contracts by using 498 software licences despite being authorised to use only 200, and by failing to pay for the additional 298 licences and outstanding annual maintenance fees.

The background to the dispute was largely common cause. NSSA initially floated an open tender in 2012, which was cancelled, before proceeding with a closed tender for the same project. TTCS emerged as the successful bidder, a decision confirmed by the State Procurement Board in a letter dated 24 May 2013. A challenge by a losing bidder was dismissed by the Administrative Court in judgment AC 5-14, which remains extant.

Following that ruling, NSSA and TTCS entered into a Social Security Systems Agreement on 31 October 2013 and an End User Licence Agreement on 20 December 2013. NSSA ultimately paid more than US$10 million toward the project, covering hardware, software licences and initial annual maintenance. TTCS later invoiced NSSA for additional licences and maintenance fees, which were not paid. In December 2017, NSSA gave notice of its intention to cancel the agreements and, in August 2020, asserted that the tender process itself was invalid.

At the centre of the judgment was whether the High Court was the proper forum to determine the legality of the tender. TTCS argued that any challenge to the decision to proceed by special tender should have been brought before the Administrative Court under the Procurement Act, while NSSA countered that it was entitled to seek a declaratur under section 14 of the High Court Act.

Manzunzu agreed with TTCS, holding that procurement disputes of this nature fall within the specialist jurisdiction of the Administrative Court. “The decision to conduct the closed tender in the manner done falls within the specialist power and competence of the Administrative Court. It is to that court that NSSA must go,” he said, adding that a court “must be sure it has the jurisdiction before it can exercise it.”

Having upheld the jurisdictional objection, the court declined to determine the remaining preliminary and substantive issues, including whether the agreements were void, whether restitution was due, or whether either party breached the contracts.

The ruling leaves NSSA’s attempt to recover more than US$10 million dismissed with costs, effectively closing the matter in the High Court without a determination on the merits of the long-running dispute.