Business Connexion (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (56540/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 281 (6 June 2017)

Business Connexion (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (56540/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 281 (6 June 2017)

The court found that the applicants' complaints regarding irregularities in the tender process were substantiated by the City of Tshwane's own investigation, which led to the withdrawal of the tender. As a result, the review application became moot, but the applicants would have succeeded had the matter proceeded, entitling them to costs. The applicants were also entitled to costs for their interlocutory application due to the lack of cooperation and communication from the City of Tshwane, and the subsequent withdrawal of the undertaking by the City justified the re-enrollment of the application. The third respondent and Bravo were entitled to costs for their interlocutory application, as...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 281
Parties
Applicant: Business Connexion (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Safika For Office Automation (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Itec Motlekar (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Kerbyn 232 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Bid Evaluation Committee: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Bravo Pro 270 CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2017
Case Number
56540/2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Costs Determination After Mootness of Merits
Outcome
Costs awarded as specified; no relief on merits as applications became moot due to withdrawal of tender.
Judges
Louw
Legal Topics
Tender Irregularities, Review of Administrative Action, Costs Award, Interim Interdict, Bid Evaluation, Technical Non Compliance
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Tender Irregularities Review of Administrative Action Costs Award Interim Interdict Bid Evaluation Technical Non Compliance

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Business Connexion (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Safika For Office Automation (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Itec Motlekar (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Kerbyn 232 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Bid Evaluation Committee: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Bravo Pro 270 CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Costs Determination After Mootness of Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to costs of the review application after the tender was withdrawn.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to costs of their interlocutory application.
  3. 3 Whether the third respondent and Bravo are entitled to costs of their interlocutory application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' complaints regarding irregularities in the tender process were substantiated by the City of Tshwane's own investigation, which led to the withdrawal of the tender. As a result, the review application became moot, but the applicants would have succeeded had the matter proceeded, entitling them to costs. The applicants were also entitled to costs for their interlocutory application due to the lack of cooperation and communication from the City of Tshwane, and the subsequent withdrawal of the undertaking by the City justified the re-enrollment of the application. The third respondent and Bravo were entitled to costs for their interlocutory application, as...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded as specified; no relief on merits as applications became moot due to withdrawal of tender.

Orders

  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the first and second applicants’ costs in respect of the review application, including the costs of the hearing on 31 May 2017.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the first and second applicants’ costs of their interlocutory application, including the reserved costs pertaining to the hearing of the application on 13 November 2012 and on 26 and 28 February 2013.