AFRIFORUM v Minister of Police (18449/21) [2021] ZAGPPHC 882 (4 October 2021)

AFRIFORUM v Minister of Police (18449/21) [2021] ZAGPPHC 882 (4 October 2021)

The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi to seek exemption from section 2(d) of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, as only organs of state may request such exemption. The applicant failed to provide factual evidence of government failures in vaccine procurement or distribution and did not join affected service providers or organs of state, rendering the application fatally defective. The relief sought was moot, as service providers had already been appointed, and the application constituted an abuse of process aimed at attacking transformative statutory provisions. The court held that the application was not urgent, unlawful, and unconstitutional, and...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 882
Parties
Applicant: AFRIFORUM; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2021
Case Number
18449/21
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
M. Mbongwe
Legal Topics
Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment, Locus Standi, Urgent Interdict, Separation of Powers, Mandamus
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Locus Standi Urgent Interdict Separation of Powers +1 more

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AFRIFORUM

Applicant

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has locus standi to seek exemption from section 2(d) of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act.
  2. 2 Whether the application is urgent and justified under Rule 6(12).
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought is constitutional and lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi to seek exemption from section 2(d) of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, as only organs of state may request such exemption. The applicant failed to provide factual evidence of government failures in vaccine procurement or distribution and did not join affected service providers or organs of state, rendering the application fatally defective. The relief sought was moot, as service providers had already been appointed, and the application constituted an abuse of process aimed at attacking transformative statutory provisions. The court held that the application was not urgent, unlawful, and unconstitutional, and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • This application is not urgent.
  • The application is dismissed.