African Information Technology Bridge 1 v The MEC for Infrastructure Development Gauteng Province (134/2014) [2015] ZASCA 104 (2 July 2015)

African Information Technology Bridge 1 v The MEC for Infrastructure Development Gauteng Province (134/2014) [2015] ZASCA 104 (2 July 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the department was fundamentally and reasonably mistaken about the identity of the contracting party, believing it was contracting with African Bridge rather than AITB 1. This mistake was deliberately induced by Mr Tucker, who changed the name of Crestwell to AITB 1 and submitted bid documents containing African Bridge's information. The department's intention throughout was to contract with African Bridge, and the evidence showed that the department would not have awarded the tenders to AITB 1 had it known the true facts. The court held that the mistake was justus, rendering the contracts void ab initio. The subsequent agreements and conduct did not...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 104
Parties
Appellant: African Information Technology Bridge 1 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Member of the Executive Council for Infrastructure Development Gauteng Province
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 July 2015
Case Number
134/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Maya, Bosielo, Schoeman, Fourie, Mayat
Legal Topics
Tender Award, Unilateral Mistake, Contract Formation, Justus Error, Void Contract, Counter Offer
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Tender Award Unilateral Mistake Contract Formation Justus Error Void Contract Counter Offer

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

African Information Technology Bridge 1 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

The Member of the Executive Council for Infrastructure Development Gauteng Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the department contracted with African Information Technology Bridge 1 (Pty) Ltd (AITB 1).
  2. 2 Whether contracts purportedly entered into between AITB 1 and the department were vitiated by unilateral mistake and thus void.
  3. 3 Whether subsequent conduct or documents constituted a valid counter-offer and acceptance, resulting in enforceable contracts.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the department was fundamentally and reasonably mistaken about the identity of the contracting party, believing it was contracting with African Bridge rather than AITB 1. This mistake was deliberately induced by Mr Tucker, who changed the name of Crestwell to AITB 1 and submitted bid documents containing African Bridge's information. The department's intention throughout was to contract with African Bridge, and the evidence showed that the department would not have awarded the tenders to AITB 1 had it known the true facts. The court held that the mistake was justus, rendering the contracts void ab initio. The subsequent agreements and conduct did not...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.