Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Fumana Thuto Consulting v Eskom Holdings (22/18028) [2023] ZAGPJHC 243 (16 March 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that Eskom's decision to disqualify the applicant from tenders KZN0072/DG and KZN0073/DG was unlawful because the financial criteria applied were not specified in the tender documents. The only relevant requirement was the CIDB grading, which the applicant met by holding a level 6 EP grading, exceeding the minimum required level 3EP. The absence of any reference to financial criteria in the tender documents meant Eskom had no legal or factual basis to disqualify the applicant on that ground. The application for review was therefore granted, and Eskom was ordered to reconsider and evaluate the applicant's bids in accordance with the published criteria, excluding the financial criteria previously applied.

Court disposition

Application granted; Eskom's decision reviewed and set aside.

Orders

  • The decision by Eskom that the applicant did not meet the financial criteria of tenders KZN0072/DG and KZN0073/DG is reviewed and set aside.
  • Eskom is ordered to further consider and evaluate the applicant's tender bids in terms of the tender criteria, excluding the financial criteria previously applied.
  • Should the evaluation of the applicant's tender bids qualify it as a successful tenderer, excluding the financial criteria previously applied, Eskom must conclude an agreement with the applicant on the same terms and conditions as other successful tenderers.
  • Eskom is ordered to pay the costs of the application.

02

Material facts

Parties

Fumana Thuto Consulting

Applicant Counsel: Adv W Krog

Eskom Holdings

Respondent Counsel: Adv C Louis

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Review Application / Unopposed Motion; Judgment After Adjournment for Consent Order

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that Eskom's decision to disqualify it from the tenders was unlawful because the financial criteria used were not specified in the tender documents. The applicant maintained that the only relevant grading requirement was the CIDB level, which it met by holding a level 6 EP grading, exceeding the minimum required level 3EP. The applicant sought an order setting aside Eskom's decision and requiring Eskom to evaluate its bids according to the published criteria, excluding the financial criteria imposed.
Respondent
Eskom conceded that its decision to disqualify the applicant should be reviewed and set aside, as the financial criteria applied were not part of the tender requirements. However, Eskom opposed the applicant's proposal to impose the CIDB financial criteria as the standard for evaluation, arguing that this would improperly restrict Eskom's discretion in evaluating tenders. Eskom agreed to reconsider the applicant's bids in terms of the published criteria, excluding the financial criteria previously applied.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000

    An administrative decision must be made in accordance with the criteria published in the tender documents; applying undisclosed criteria constitutes unlawful administrative action.

  2. 02

    Fumana Thuto Consulting v Eskom Holdings (22/18028) [2023] ZAGPJHC 243

    A tenderer who meets the minimum published grading requirements cannot be disqualified on the basis of additional, unpublished financial criteria.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that Eskom's decision to disqualify the applicant from tenders KZN0072/DG and KZN0073/DG was unlawful because the financial criteria applied were not specified in the tender documents. The only relevant requirement was the CIDB grading, which the applicant met by holding a level 6 EP grading, exceeding the minimum required level 3EP. The absence of any reference to financial criteria in the tender documents meant Eskom had no legal or factual basis to disqualify the applicant on that ground. The application for review was therefore granted, and Eskom was ordered to reconsider and evaluate the applicant's bids in accordance with the published criteria, excluding the financial criteria previously applied.

Obiter and limits

  • The court noted that parties should ensure that all criteria for evaluation are clearly set out in tender documents to avoid disputes and unnecessary litigation.
  • The court observed that attempts to introduce new criteria after the publication of tender documents undermine the fairness and transparency of the procurement process.

Court disposition

Application granted; Eskom's decision reviewed and set aside.

  • The decision by Eskom that the applicant did not meet the financial criteria of tenders KZN0072/DG and KZN0073/DG is reviewed and set aside.
  • Eskom is ordered to further consider and evaluate the applicant's tender bids in terms of the tender criteria, excluding the financial criteria previously applied.
  • Should the evaluation of the applicant's tender bids qualify it as a successful tenderer, excluding the financial criteria previously applied, Eskom must conclude an agreement with the applicant on the same terms and conditions as other successful tenderers.
  • Eskom is ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Source and reliance status

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Judgment

[2023] ZAGPJHC 243

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)

REPUBLIC

OF SOUTH AFRICA

CASE NO: 22/18028

REPORTABLE: NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3) REVISED: NO

DATE: 16 MARCH 2023

In the matter between

FUMANA THUTO

CONSULTING

APPLICANT

And

ESKOM

HOLDINGS

RESPONDENT

Delivered: By transmission to the parties via email and uploading onto Case Lines

the Judgment is deemed to be delivered. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 16

March 2023.

JUDGMENT

SENYATSI J:

[1] This matter was set down on 15 March 2023 on the unopposed court roll. Advocate Krog, who appeared on behalf of the applicant, asked for the matter to stand down to 16 March 2023 as the parties were attempting to finalise the consent order. The court granted the indulgence and adjourned the matter to 16 March 2023.

[2] The application concerns the review and setting aside of Eskom’s decision to disqualify the applicant from the tender no KZN0072/DG and KZN0073/DG based on the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000.The applicant contends that the financial criteria used to disqualify it was not spelt out in both tenders as part of the requirements.

[3] The proceedings were initiated during May 2022. No opposition documents were filed. The matter was correctly set down in the unopposed roll,

[4] The wording on the consent order could not be finalized as the parties had disagreement with whether there ought to be reference to financial criteria in the order. Advocate Louis who appeared for Eskom stated that the proposed wording by the applicant was unacceptable to it because it sought to impose the financial criteria of the CIDB as the criteria to be used by Eskom in evaluating the applicant. This was the position on the 16 March 2023 when the matter resumed.

[5] Both parties were in agreement that the decision to disqualify the applicant based on the financial criteria that were not part of the tender requirement had to be reviewed and set aside. 6 March 2023 Advocate Krog and Advocate Louis appeared before me.

[6] Having considered the papers and having regard to the fact that the tender documents do not make references in the Standard Terms and conditions as published to any financial criteria to be used in evaluation of the tenderer. On the contrary, the tender documents are silent on this aspect.

[7] Eskom also attempted to file notice to oppose the application and an opposing affidavit on 16 March 2023. It concedes to the review and setting aside of its decision but contests the imposition of the CIDB financial criteria as proposed by the applicant’s draft order.

[8] Having considered the papers filed of record and the fact that no financial criteria to be used was spelt out in both tender document, Eskom had no legal and factual basis to disqualify the applicant from both tenders for failing to meet the financial criteria.

[9] Eskom’s minimum CIBD requirements was that the tender had to have level 3EP or higher of the of the CIDB grading. The applicant was graded as level 6 EP and consequently more than met the minimum grading requirement.

[9] Accordingly, the application must succeed.

ORDER

[10] Having read the documents filed of record and having considered the matter:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(a) the decision by the respondent that the applicant did not meet the financial criteria of the tenders KZN0072/DG and KZN0073/DG is reviewed and set aside.

(b) Order the respondent to further consider and evaluate the applicant’s tender bids in terms of the tender criteria, excluding the financial criteria applied.

(c) Order that should the evaluation of the applicant’s tender bids qualify it as a successful tenderer excluding the financial criteria applied, that an agreement be concluded by the respondent with the applicant on the same terms and conditions as the other successful tenderers.

(d) The respondent to pay the costs of the application.

ML

SENYATSI

JUDGE

OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

DATE APPLICATION HEARD: 16 March 2023

DATE JUDGMENT DELIVERED: 16 March 2023

APPEARANCES

Counsel for the Applicant:

Adv W Krog

Instructed by:

Knowles Husain Lindsay Inc

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv C Louis

Instructed by:

Lulama Prince Inc

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Fumana Thuto Consulting v Eskom Holdings (22/18028) [2023] ZAGPJHC 243

Case cited

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.