CTP Limited and Others v Director General, Department of Basic Education and Others (38562/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 294 (26 April 2018)

CTP Limited and Others v Director General, Department of Basic Education and Others (38562/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 294 (26 April 2018)

The court found that, although the Bid Evaluation Committee's approach involved confusion and differential treatment of bids, it was not unreasonable or procedurally unfair in the circumstances. The deviation from the Implementation Guide was not a reviewable irregularity because the policy was not mandatory and the unwitting deviation was not unreasonable. However, the court acknowledged that there is a reasonable prospect that another court could reach a different conclusion regarding the reasonableness and fairness of the process, particularly in light of the differential treatment and lack of justification for deviating from government policy. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 294
Parties
Applicant: CTP Limited and Others; Respondent: Director General, Department of Basic Education and Others
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 April 2018
Case Number
38562/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal; costs of the application, including costs of three counsel, to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
R Murphy
Legal Topics
Bid Evaluation, Procedural Fairness, Rationality, Government Policy Deviation, Implementation Guide, Leave to Appeal
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Bid Evaluation Procedural Fairness Rationality Government Policy Deviation Implementation Guide Leave to Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CTP Limited and Others

Applicant

Director General, Department of Basic Education and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bid Evaluation Committee's differential treatment of bids constituted a reviewable irregularity.
  2. 2 Whether deviation from the Implementation Guide without justification rendered the process unreasonable or procedurally unfair.
  3. 3 Whether the court's approach improperly applied the 'no difference' principle in administrative review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the Bid Evaluation Committee's approach involved confusion and differential treatment of bids, it was not unreasonable or procedurally unfair in the circumstances. The deviation from the Implementation Guide was not a reviewable irregularity because the policy was not mandatory and the unwitting deviation was not unreasonable. However, the court acknowledged that there is a reasonable prospect that another court could reach a different conclusion regarding the reasonableness and fairness of the process, particularly in light of the differential treatment and lack of justification for deviating from government policy. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal; costs of the application, including costs of three counsel, to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Applicants are granted leave to appeal against the judgment to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  • Costs of the application for leave, including costs of employing three counsel, will be costs in the appeal.