Down Touch Investments v Transnet SOC Limited and Another (098500/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1226 (27 October 2023)

Down Touch Investments v Transnet SOC Limited and Another (098500/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1226 (27 October 2023)

The court found that Down Touch Investments did not submit an acceptable tender, as its bid failed to comply with the required functionality criteria. The applicant's interpretation of the tender requirements was misguided, and its submissions did not justify non-compliance. The court further held that the urgency claimed by the applicant was self-created, as it delayed bringing the application despite being aware of the reasons for its disqualification. The applicant failed to set out explicit facts demonstrating urgency or why substantial redress could not be obtained at a hearing in due course. Consequently, the application did not meet the threshold for urgent relief under Rule...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1226
Parties
Applicant: Down Touch Investments (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Transnet SOC Limited; Respondent: Rumdel Construction (Pty) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2023
Case Number
098500/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict and Review Application (part a and B); Struck From Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded to respondents.
Judges
L R Adams
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Tender Review, Urgency in Interdicts, Costs Award
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act Tender Review Urgency in Interdicts 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Down Touch Investments (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Transnet SOC Limited

Respondent

Rumdel Construction (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict and Review Application (part a and B); Struck From Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right to interim interdictory relief pending review.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's tender was unlawfully disqualified by the first respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the application meets the requirements of urgency under Uniform Rule of Court 6(12).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Down Touch Investments did not submit an acceptable tender, as its bid failed to comply with the required functionality criteria. The applicant's interpretation of the tender requirements was misguided, and its submissions did not justify non-compliance. The court further held that the urgency claimed by the applicant was self-created, as it delayed bringing the application despite being aware of the reasons for its disqualification. The applicant failed to set out explicit facts demonstrating urgency or why substantial redress could not be obtained at a hearing in due course. Consequently, the application did not meet the threshold for urgent relief under Rule...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • The applicant’s urgent application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The applicant shall pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the urgent application, including costs for two counsel where so employed.