Afribusiness NPC v Minister of Finance (1050/2019) [2020] ZASCA 140; [2021] 1 All SA 1 (SCA); 2021 (1) SA 325 (SCA) (2 November 2020)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Minister of Finance exceeded his powers under section 5 of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act by promulgating regulations that introduced discretionary pre-qualification criteria without providing a guiding framework for organs of state. These regulations deviated from the constitutional and statutory requirements that public procurement be conducted in a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective manner, and that preferential policies be implemented only within a prescribed legislative framework. The court found that the impugned regulations were inconsistent with both the Framework Act and section 217 of the...
- Citation
- [2020] ZASCA 140
- Parties
- Appellant: Afribusiness NPC; Respondent: Minister of Finance
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 2 November 2020
- Case Number
- 1050/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld. Preferential Procurement Regulations, 2017 declared invalid and set aside. Declaration of invalidity suspended for 12 months.
- Judges
- Ponnan, Zondi, Dambuza, Eksteen, Goosen
- Legal Topics
- Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Ultra Vires, Public Procurement, Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment, Constitutional Review
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Afribusiness NPC
Appellant
Minister of Finance
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Minister of Finance exceeded his powers under section 5 of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act 5 of 2000 in promulgating the Preferential Procurement Regulations, 2017.
- 2 Whether the 2017 Regulations are inconsistent with the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act and section 217 of the Constitution.
- 3 Whether the promulgation and adoption of the Regulations was procedurally unfair or unlawful due to inadequate public participation and non-compliance with SEIAS Guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Minister of Finance exceeded his powers under section 5 of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act by promulgating regulations that introduced discretionary pre-qualification criteria without providing a guiding framework for organs of state. These regulations deviated from the constitutional and statutory requirements that public procurement be conducted in a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective manner, and that preferential policies be implemented only within a prescribed legislative framework. The court found that the impugned regulations were inconsistent with both the Framework Act and section 217 of the...
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld. Preferential Procurement Regulations, 2017 declared invalid and set aside. Declaration of invalidity suspended for 12 months.
Orders
- The appeal is upheld with costs.
- The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: (a) The application succeeds with costs. (b) It is declared that the Preferential Procurement Regulations, 2017 are inconsistent with the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act 5 of 2000 and are invalid. (c) The declaration of invalidity is...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment