HCB Eiendomswaardeerders BK v Scholtz and Others (1229/2007) [2008] ZAWCHC 231 (1 August 2008)

HCB Eiendomswaardeerders BK v Scholtz and Others (1229/2007) [2008] ZAWCHC 231 (1 August 2008)

The applicant failed to institute review proceedings with the necessary urgency and did not seek interim relief, despite knowing the tendered work would be completed by December 2007. The delays were not adequately explained or justified, and the applicant's conduct undermined the possibility of effective judicial intervention. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Appeal dictates that delay in bringing review proceedings can be fatal, especially where public interest in finality and efficiency is at stake. As the review is dismissed, the claim for compensation for out of pocket expenses falls away, since damages can only be considered after a successful review. The application is...

Citation
[2008] ZAWCHC 231
Parties
Applicant: HCB Eiendomswaardeerders BK; Respondent: J J Scholtz; Respondent: Die Tendertoekenningskomitee van die Swartland Munisipaliteit; Respondent: A W Bredell, Uitvoerende Burgemeester; Respondent: M # Medewerkers
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2008
Case Number
1229/2007
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Davis, Steyn
Legal Topics
Tender Review, Delay in Instituting Review, Just and Equitable Remedy, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Out of Pocket Expenses
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Tender Review Delay in Instituting Review Just and Equitable Remedy Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Out of Pocket Expenses

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

Parties

HCB Eiendomswaardeerders BK

Applicant

J J Scholtz

Respondent

Die Tendertoekenningskomitee van die Swartland Munisipaliteit

Respondent

A W Bredell, Uitvoerende Burgemeester

Respondent

M # Medewerkers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's delay in instituting review proceedings precludes the relief sought.
  2. 2 Whether the tender award process was procedurally and substantively fair under administrative law.
  3. 3 Whether compensation for 'out of pocket expenses' is available when the review fails.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to institute review proceedings with the necessary urgency and did not seek interim relief, despite knowing the tendered work would be completed by December 2007. The delays were not adequately explained or justified, and the applicant's conduct undermined the possibility of effective judicial intervention. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Appeal dictates that delay in bringing review proceedings can be fatal, especially where public interest in finality and efficiency is at stake. As the review is dismissed, the claim for compensation for out of pocket expenses falls away, since damages can only be considered after a successful review. The application is...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondents, including the costs of two counsel.