Fezi Consultants and Auditors (Pty) Ltd v Centlec (SOC) Ltd and Another (1318/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 503 (27 December 2023)

Fezi Consultants and Auditors (Pty) Ltd v Centlec (SOC) Ltd and Another (1318/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 503 (27 December 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The applicant misunderstood the tender requirements, particularly regarding item 4, and its bid did not meet the evaluation criteria. The court held that the Biowatch principle did not apply, as the applicant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 503
Parties
Applicant: Fezi Consultants & Auditors (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Centlec (SOC) Ltd; Respondent: Makomota Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 December 2023
Case Number
1318/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
NM MBHELE, NS DANISO
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Bid Evaluation, Costs Award, Leave to Appeal, Constitutional Litigation
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Bid Evaluation Costs Award Leave to Appeal Constitutional Litigation

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fezi Consultants & Auditors (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Centlec (SOC) Ltd

Respondent

Makomota Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of its review application.
  2. 2 Whether the costs order against the applicant should be reconsidered in light of the Biowatch principle.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's bid met the requirements of the tender and evaluation criteria.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The applicant misunderstood the tender requirements, particularly regarding item 4, and its bid did not meet the evaluation criteria. The court held that the Biowatch principle did not apply, as the applicant's challenge was not genuinely constitutional but rather based on a misapprehension of administrative requirements. The costs order was justified given the nature of the litigation and the absence of substantive constitutional issues. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs, including those consequent upon the employment of counsel.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs to include those consequent in the employment of counsel.