Channel Construction (Pty) Ltd v Transnet SOC and Others (2024/111291) [2025] ZAGPJHC 51 (21 January 2025)

Channel Construction (Pty) Ltd v Transnet SOC and Others (2024/111291) [2025] ZAGPJHC 51 (21 January 2025)

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the interim interdict. The right to review, in itself, does not constitute the required right for interim relief. The applicant conceded its bid did not meet the strict mandatory qualifications of the tender, undermining its prospects of success in the review. The separation of powers doctrine requires courts to exercise restraint in interfering with statutory functions of state entities, and such interdicts are granted only in the clearest of cases, which was not demonstrated here. No mala fides or breach of fundamental rights was established. Furthermore, the application may be time-barred under PAJA's 180 day limit, and no...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 51
Parties
Applicant: Channel Construction (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Transnet SOC Ltd; Respondent: Mbali Industrial Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Bureau Veritas (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Dormac (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Pro Auto Rubber CC; Respondent: 6Sigma (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Isiphethu/Amabutho JV; Respondent: Stefanutti Stocks (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Amulet Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: MMK Gauges BICS Engineering JV; Respondent: Enelad (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Africa Projects Consultants; Respondent: Damien Shipyards (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Guerrini Marine Construction CC; Respondent: ZM Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 January 2025
Case Number
2024/111291
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Review
Outcome
Application for interim interdict (Part A) dismissed with costs.
Judges
Fisher
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Interim Interdict, Paja 180 Day Limit, Separation of Powers, Bid Disqualification

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

Channel Construction (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Transnet SOC Ltd

Respondent

Mbali Industrial Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Bureau Veritas (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Dormac (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Pro Auto Rubber CC

Respondent

6Sigma (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Isiphethu/Amabutho JV

Respondent

Stefanutti Stocks (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Amulet Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

MMK Gauges BICS Engineering JV

Respondent

Enelad (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Africa Projects Consultants

Respondent

Damien Shipyards (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Guerrini Marine Construction CC

Respondent

ZM Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Review

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict restraining implementation of the tender pending review.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right to relief under the Setlogelo test.
  3. 3 Whether urgency is established for the interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the interim interdict. The right to review, in itself, does not constitute the required right for interim relief. The applicant conceded its bid did not meet the strict mandatory qualifications of the tender, undermining its prospects of success in the review. The separation of powers doctrine requires courts to exercise restraint in interfering with statutory functions of state entities, and such interdicts are granted only in the clearest of cases, which was not demonstrated here. No mala fides or breach of fundamental rights was established. Furthermore, the application may be time-barred under PAJA's 180 day limit, and no...

Court Disposition

Application for interim interdict (Part A) dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Part A of the application is dismissed with costs, such costs to be taxed according to scale C.