Amadwala Trading 73 CC v Ethekwini Municipality (AR317/2022) [2024] ZAKZPHC 93 (28 March 2024)

Amadwala Trading 73 CC v Ethekwini Municipality (AR317/2022) [2024] ZAKZPHC 93 (28 March 2024)

The court found that the tender was never formally awarded to the appellant, as the respondent's practice was to inform unsuccessful bidders first and only appoint the successful bidder after internal appeals were finalised. The respondent's SCM policy and Preferential Procurement Regulations permitted cancellation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAKZPHC 93
Parties
Appellant: Amadwala Trading 73 CC; Respondent: Ethekwini Municipality
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2024
Case Number
AR317/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Durban
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mathenjwa, Olsen, Mpontshana
Legal Topics
Tender Cancellation, Preferential Procurement Regulations, Municipal Supply Chain Management, Procedural Fairness, Principle of Legality
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Tender Cancellation Preferential Procurement Regulations Municipal Supply Chain Management Procedural Fairness Principle of Legality

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amadwala Trading 73 CC

Appellant

Ethekwini Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Durban

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tender was awarded to the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to cancel the tender.
  3. 3 Whether the cancellation was rational and lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the tender was never formally awarded to the appellant, as the respondent's practice was to inform unsuccessful bidders first and only appoint the successful bidder after internal appeals were finalised. The respondent's SCM policy and Preferential Procurement Regulations permitted cancellation of the tender due to changed circumstances, specifically the decision to insource waste management services in response to service disruptions. The cancellation was lawful and rationally connected to the respondent's constitutional obligations to provide sustainable services. The decision to cancel was an executive, not administrative, action, and thus not subject to PAJA....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.