Basil Read (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (28465/11) [2011] ZAGPPHC 230 (21 July 2011)

Basil Read (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (28465/11) [2011] ZAGPPHC 230 (21 July 2011)

The court found that the application was not urgent and was premature because no final decision to award the tender had been made and the necessary approvals, particularly from National Treasury, were outstanding. The applicants sought to protect rights that had not yet vested and might never vest if the approval was not granted. The respondents had undertaken to notify the applicants at key stages and to allow sufficient time for any urgent application should the tender be awarded. The court held that the applicants could obtain substantial relief in due course and that there was no certainty that their rights would be adversely affected. Accordingly, the application was dismissed for...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 230
Parties
Applicant: Basil Read (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Bouygues Batiment International; Applicant: Colliers Property and Facilities Management (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Cross Atlantic Properties 155 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Insaki Concessions (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Imalivest Study Trust Investment Company (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Vuya Investments (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Minister of Finance; Respondent: Tshala Bese Uyavuna Consortium; Respondent: Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Group Five Infrastructural Developments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Wilson Bayley Holmes Ovcon (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Total Facilities Management Company (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 July 2011
Case Number
28465/11
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Points in Limine
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of urgency and prematurity. Costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
MNGQIBISA-THUSI
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Prematurity, Urgency, Public Private Partnership, Tender Award, Review Proceedings
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Prematurity Urgency Public Private Partnership Tender Award Review Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basil Read (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Bouygues Batiment International

Applicant

Colliers Property and Facilities Management (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Cross Atlantic Properties 155 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Insaki Concessions (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Imalivest Study Trust Investment Company (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Vuya Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Minister of Finance

Respondent

Tshala Bese Uyavuna Consortium

Respondent

Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Group Five Infrastructural Developments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Wilson Bayley Holmes Ovcon (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Total Facilities Management Company (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Points in Limine

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and warrants condonation of non-compliance with court rules.
  2. 2 Whether the application is premature given that no final decision to award the tender has been made.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have rights to protect prior to the finalisation of the tender process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was not urgent and was premature because no final decision to award the tender had been made and the necessary approvals, particularly from National Treasury, were outstanding. The applicants sought to protect rights that had not yet vested and might never vest if the approval was not granted. The respondents had undertaken to notify the applicants at key stages and to allow sufficient time for any urgent application should the tender be awarded. The court held that the applicants could obtain substantial relief in due course and that there was no certainty that their rights would be adversely affected. Accordingly, the application was dismissed for...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of urgency and prematurity. Costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The two points in limine (urgency and prematurity) are upheld.
  • The application is dismissed for lack of urgency and prematurity.