Adcock Ingram Critical Care (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Shared Services Centre and Others [2007] ZAGPHC 381; 12850/06 (9 May 2007)

Adcock Ingram Critical Care (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Shared Services Centre and Others [2007] ZAGPHC 381; 12850/06 (9 May 2007)

The court found that the Departmental Acquisition Committee failed to inform the applicant of the critical fact that tenders would be considered for 230,400 bundles of consumables as a single award. This information was selectively disclosed to the fourth respondent, enabling it to lower its bid and secure the tender. The respondents' denials were bald and unsupported by evidence, and the applicant's version was accepted in accordance with the Plascon Evans rule. The court held that the process was procedurally unfair under section 6(2)(c) of PAJA. As a result, the award of the tender was reviewable and liable to be set aside. The court exercised its discretion under section 8 of PAJA to...

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 381
Parties
Applicant: Adcock Ingram Critical Care (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Gauteng Shared Services Centre; Respondent: Clinix Renal Care (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sanbonani Holdings (Pty) Limited
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2007
Case Number
12850/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The application for review is granted. The award of the tender is set aside and declared invalid. The DAC is directed to reconsider and re-evaluate the bids, affording all bidders an equal opportunity to revise their prices.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Procedural Fairness, Tender Review, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Procedural Fairness Tender Review Judicial Review

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adcock Ingram Critical Care (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Gauteng Shared Services Centre

Respondent

Clinix Renal Care (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Sanbonani Holdings (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the tender process conducted in a procedurally fair manner as required by PAJA?
  2. 2 Did the Departmental Acquisition Committee's communication with bidders amount to unfairness in the award of the tender?
  3. 3 Is the award of the tender reviewable and liable to be set aside under section 6(2)(c) of PAJA?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Departmental Acquisition Committee failed to inform the applicant of the critical fact that tenders would be considered for 230,400 bundles of consumables as a single award. This information was selectively disclosed to the fourth respondent, enabling it to lower its bid and secure the tender. The respondents' denials were bald and unsupported by evidence, and the applicant's version was accepted in accordance with the Plascon Evans rule. The court held that the process was procedurally unfair under section 6(2)(c) of PAJA. As a result, the award of the tender was reviewable and liable to be set aside. The court exercised its discretion under section 8 of PAJA to...

Court Disposition

The application for review is granted. The award of the tender is set aside and declared invalid. The DAC is directed to reconsider and re-evaluate the bids, affording all bidders an equal opportunity to revise their prices.

Orders

  • The award of tender (GT/GHD/199/04) by the Departmental Acquisition Committee is reviewed, set aside, and declared invalid.
  • The DAC is directed to reconsider and re-evaluate the bids of the applicant, the fourth respondent, and Sanbonani Holdings (Pty) Limited, and to decide on the successful bidder within two months.