Bayethe Projects CC v Nelson Mandela Municipality and Another (3516/2018) [2020] ZAECPEHC 42 (5 November 2020)

Bayethe Projects CC v Nelson Mandela Municipality and Another (3516/2018) [2020] ZAECPEHC 42 (5 November 2020)

The court found that the procurement process followed by the first respondent was not administratively flawed to the extent that the award to the second respondent should be set aside. While there were minor shortfalls in the second respondent's compliance with the tender criteria, these were not material enough to justify judicial intervention, especially given the absence of evidence that the second respondent was unable to perform the required work or that the applicant had previously delivered exemplary service. The court emphasized that administrative action in procurement must be reviewed under PAJA, focusing on fairness and lawfulness rather than correctness. The applicant failed...

Citation
[2020] ZAECPEHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Bayethe Projects CC; Respondent: Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality; Respondent: Bronscor CC
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 November 2020
Case Number
3516/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed. Costs awarded against the applicant and first respondent jointly and severally.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Public Procurement, Municipal Supply Chain Management, Judicial Review, Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Public Procurement Municipal Supply Chain Management Judicial Review Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bayethe Projects CC

Applicant

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

Respondent

Bronscor CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent's decision to award the tender for Area 1 to the second respondent was lawful and compliant with the minimum criteria set out in the tender data.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's bid was correctly declared non-responsive.
  3. 3 Whether the procurement process followed by the first respondent was administratively fair and lawful under PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the procurement process followed by the first respondent was not administratively flawed to the extent that the award to the second respondent should be set aside. While there were minor shortfalls in the second respondent's compliance with the tender criteria, these were not material enough to justify judicial intervention, especially given the absence of evidence that the second respondent was unable to perform the required work or that the applicant had previously delivered exemplary service. The court emphasized that administrative action in procurement must be reviewed under PAJA, focusing on fairness and lawfulness rather than correctness. The applicant failed...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Costs awarded against the applicant and first respondent jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant and the first respondent are liable to pay the second respondent's costs of the application, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.