Bertobrite (Pty) Ltd v Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality (3200/2019) [2023] ZANWHC 48 (17 April 2023)

Bertobrite (Pty) Ltd v Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality (3200/2019) [2023] ZANWHC 48 (17 April 2023)

The court found that the plaintiff was appointed under Regulation 32 of the Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations, as evidenced by the appointment letter issued by the defendant's Municipal Manager. The defendant failed to adduce any evidence disputing compliance with Regulation 32 or the lawfulness of the appointment. The requirements for dispensing with a competitive bidding process were met, and the defendant's arguments regarding non-compliance with section 217 of the Constitution were unsupported by evidence. The plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that it was entitled to payment for services rendered, as acknowledged by the defendant. The withdrawal of the...

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 48
Parties
Plaintiff: Bertobrite (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 April 2023
Case Number
3200/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for payment of the claimed amount, interest, and costs. Defendant's counterclaim withdrawn.
Judges
J T Djaje
Legal Topics
Municipal Procurement, Service Level Agreement, Regulation 32, Acknowledgment of Debt, Competitive Bidding, Costs Award
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Municipal Procurement Service Level Agreement Regulation 32 Acknowledgment of Debt Competitive Bidding Costs Award

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bertobrite (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Service Level Agreement between the plaintiff and defendant was lawfully concluded under Regulation 32 of the Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff for the provision of full maintenance lease vehicles.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a competitive bidding process invalidates the contract and the acknowledgment of debt.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was appointed under Regulation 32 of the Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations, as evidenced by the appointment letter issued by the defendant's Municipal Manager. The defendant failed to adduce any evidence disputing compliance with Regulation 32 or the lawfulness of the appointment. The requirements for dispensing with a competitive bidding process were met, and the defendant's arguments regarding non-compliance with section 217 of the Constitution were unsupported by evidence. The plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that it was entitled to payment for services rendered, as acknowledged by the defendant. The withdrawal of the...

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for payment of the claimed amount, interest, and costs. Defendant's counterclaim withdrawn.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted against the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for payment of R12,466,266.20.
  • Interest on the capital sum of R12,466,266.20 at 7.25% per annum from 3 December 2019 to date of payment.