Independent Development Trust v Moepathutse Property Investments (Pty) Ltd (Application for Leave to Appeal) (2024/031868) [2025] ZAGPPHC 711 (11 July 2025)

Independent Development Trust v Moepathutse Property Investments (Pty) Ltd (Application for Leave to Appeal) (2024/031868) [2025] ZAGPPHC 711 (11 July 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The confirmatory affidavits were uploaded to Caselines minutes before the hearing and were not properly served or delivered in accordance with the Practice Directive and Uniform Rules of Court. No explanation or condonation was provided for their late submission. The court held that the affidavits were not before it and did not exercise any discretion to allow them. The applicants did not establish any breach of the SCM policy or procurement requirements, nor did they show that the tender process contravened Section 217(1) of the Constitution. Applying the statutory test under Section...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 711
Parties
Applicant: Independent Development Trust (IDT); Applicant: Tebogo Malaka N.O; Applicant: Zimbini Hill N.O; Applicant: Thimothy Sukazi N.O; Applicant: Dr Michael Sutcliffe N.O; Applicant: Prof. Raymond Nkado N.O; Applicant: Karabo Siyila N.O; Applicant: Lerato Kumalo N.O; Applicant: Prudence Mkhwanazi N.O; Applicant: Mpilo Mbambisa N.O; Applicant: Krishen Sukoey N.O; Applicant: Adv Lufuno Nevondwe N.O; Applicant: Rehana Parker N.O; Respondent: Moepathutse Property Investments (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 July 2025
Case Number
2024/031868
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
SJ Myburgh
Legal Topics
Review of Tender Award, Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence, Practice Directive Compliance, Leave to Appeal Test
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Review of Tender Award Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence Practice Directive Compliance Leave to Appeal Test

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Independent Development Trust (IDT)

Applicant

Tebogo Malaka N.O

Applicant

Zimbini Hill N.O

Applicant

Thimothy Sukazi N.O

Applicant

Dr Michael Sutcliffe N.O

Applicant

Prof. Raymond Nkado N.O

Applicant

Karabo Siyila N.O

Applicant

Lerato Kumalo N.O

Applicant

Prudence Mkhwanazi N.O

Applicant

Mpilo Mbambisa N.O

Applicant

Krishen Sukoey N.O

Applicant

Adv Lufuno Nevondwe N.O

Applicant

Rehana Parker N.O

Applicant

Moepathutse Property Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of their review application.
  2. 2 Whether the uploading and non-service of confirmatory affidavits complied with the Practice Directive and Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the tender award process contravened the relevant procurement policies and constitutional requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The confirmatory affidavits were uploaded to Caselines minutes before the hearing and were not properly served or delivered in accordance with the Practice Directive and Uniform Rules of Court. No explanation or condonation was provided for their late submission. The court held that the affidavits were not before it and did not exercise any discretion to allow them. The applicants did not establish any breach of the SCM policy or procurement requirements, nor did they show that the tender process contravened Section 217(1) of the Constitution. Applying the statutory test under Section...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of counsel on Scale C.