AA Solwandle Attorneys Incorporated v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (1093/2019) [2019] ZAECPEHC 62 (25 September 2019)

AA Solwandle Attorneys Incorporated v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (1093/2019) [2019] ZAECPEHC 62 (25 September 2019)

The court found that the applicant's reliance on the respondent's supply chain management policy was misplaced. The relevant paragraphs of the policy do not confer a right on the applicant to compel the respondent to resolve its written objection. The policy provides for the appointment of an independent and impartial person to assist in resolving disputes, objections, complaints, or queries, but does not grant decision-making powers to that person. Therefore, the applicant failed to establish a clear right, which is a prerequisite for a final interdict. Even if a clear right existed, the applicant had an alternative satisfactory remedy available, namely to institute review proceedings to...

Citation
[2019] ZAECPEHC 62
Parties
Applicant: AA Solwandle Attorneys Incorporated; Respondent: Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2019
Case Number
1093/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
G H Bloem
Legal Topics
Municipal Supply Chain Management, Mandatory Interdict, Alternative Remedy, Final Interdict Requirements
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Municipal Supply Chain Management Mandatory Interdict Alternative Remedy Final Interdict Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AA Solwandle Attorneys Incorporated

Applicant

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a clear right to compel the respondent to resolve its written objection within a specified period.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's supply chain management policy confers a right to the applicant to demand resolution of its objection.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has an alternative satisfactory remedy available.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's reliance on the respondent's supply chain management policy was misplaced. The relevant paragraphs of the policy do not confer a right on the applicant to compel the respondent to resolve its written objection. The policy provides for the appointment of an independent and impartial person to assist in resolving disputes, objections, complaints, or queries, but does not grant decision-making powers to that person. Therefore, the applicant failed to establish a clear right, which is a prerequisite for a final interdict. Even if a clear right existed, the applicant had an alternative satisfactory remedy available, namely to institute review proceedings to...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.