Aventino Ecotroopers Joint Venture and Others v MEC for the Department of Roads and Transport, Gauteng Province and Others (1233/2023) [2025] ZASCA 32; 2025 (4) SA 419 (SCA) (31 March 2025)

Aventino Ecotroopers Joint Venture and Others v MEC for the Department of Roads and Transport, Gauteng Province and Others (1233/2023) [2025] ZASCA 32; 2025 (4) SA 419 (SCA) (31 March 2025)

The Court held that the Department lawfully extended the bid validity period by inviting all bidders to consent to extensions and excluding those who failed to respond or declined, as permitted by the supply chain management policy and s 38 of the PFMA. Aventino did not challenge the legality of this exclusionary regime. The Department was entitled to exclude Aventino from consideration based on substantiated evidence of misrepresentations in a prior tender, as found by the SIU and confirmed in Tribunal proceedings, and the prospective listing on the Treasury restricted supplier database. The exclusion was not based on irrelevant considerations, and the Department was not obliged to award...

Citation
[2025] ZASCA 32
Parties
Appellant: Aventino Ecotroopers Joint Venture; Appellant: All Afrika Group (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Ecotroopers Construction (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: MEC for the Department of Roads and Transport, Gauteng Province; Respondent: Vea Road Maintenance and Civils (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Lubocon Civils CC
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2025
Case Number
1233/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
Judges
Nicholls, Mbatha, Unterhalter, Musi, Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Bid Validity Period, Disqualification of Bidders, Misrepresentation, Restricted Supplier Listing, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Public Procurement Bid Validity Period Disqualification of Bidders Misrepresentation Restricted Supplier Listing +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aventino Ecotroopers Joint Venture

Appellant

All Afrika Group (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Ecotroopers Construction (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

MEC for the Department of Roads and Transport, Gauteng Province

Respondent

Vea Road Maintenance and Civils (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Lubocon Civils CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the tenders lapse due to invalid extension of the bid validity period?
  2. 2 Was Aventino unlawfully excluded from consideration for the tenders?
  3. 3 Is the Department's exclusion of Aventino based on irrelevant or unlawful considerations?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Department lawfully extended the bid validity period by inviting all bidders to consent to extensions and excluding those who failed to respond or declined, as permitted by the supply chain management policy and s 38 of the PFMA. Aventino did not challenge the legality of this exclusionary regime. The Department was entitled to exclude Aventino from consideration based on substantiated evidence of misrepresentations in a prior tender, as found by the SIU and confirmed in Tribunal proceedings, and the prospective listing on the Treasury restricted supplier database. The exclusion was not based on irrelevant considerations, and the Department was not obliged to award...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.

Orders

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