Bophelong Construction (PTY) LTD v Roads Agency Limpopo (SOC) Limited (7765/2020) [2022] ZALMPPHC 71 (19 December 2022)

Bophelong Construction (PTY) LTD v Roads Agency Limpopo (SOC) Limited (7765/2020) [2022] ZALMPPHC 71 (19 December 2022)

The court found that a genuine dispute of fact exists regarding whether the applicant attached the mandatory completion certificates to its bid documents. The applicant sought final relief on motion proceedings without applying for referral to oral evidence or trial, and thus the dispute must be resolved in accordance with the Plascon-Evans rule. The respondent's version, supported by secure handling procedures and affidavits from officials, is not so far-fetched or untenable as to be rejected on the papers. Consequently, the applicant's review application cannot succeed. The court condoned the first respondent's supplementary affidavit and dismissed the application to strike out portions...

Citation
[2022] ZALMPPHC 71
Parties
Applicant: Bophelong Construction (PTY) LTD; Respondent: Roads Agency Limpopo (SOC) Limited; Respondent: Lilithalethu Trading 41 CC
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 December 2022
Case Number
7765/2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Ledwaba
Legal Topics
Tender Review, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Dispute of Fact, Remedies Under Paja, Costs Award
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Tender Review Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Dispute of Fact Remedies Under Paja 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bophelong Construction (PTY) LTD

Applicant

Roads Agency Limpopo (SOC) Limited

Respondent

Lilithalethu Trading 41 CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's bid was lawfully disqualified for failing to attach mandatory completion certificates.
  2. 2 Whether a genuine dispute of fact exists regarding the attachment of the disputed documents to the applicant's bid.
  3. 3 Whether the application should be dismissed on the basis of irresoluble disputes of fact under Rule 6(5)(g) of the Uniform Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a genuine dispute of fact exists regarding whether the applicant attached the mandatory completion certificates to its bid documents. The applicant sought final relief on motion proceedings without applying for referral to oral evidence or trial, and thus the dispute must be resolved in accordance with the Plascon-Evans rule. The respondent's version, supported by secure handling procedures and affidavits from officials, is not so far-fetched or untenable as to be rejected on the papers. Consequently, the applicant's review application cannot succeed. The court condoned the first respondent's supplementary affidavit and dismissed the application to strike out portions...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The first respondent's delivery of its supplementary affidavit is condoned.