Kir Projects v Actophambili Roads and Others (5857/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 409 (26 October 2023)

Kir Projects v Actophambili Roads and Others (5857/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 409 (26 October 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to prosecute the review application with the required urgency, resulting in an unreasonable delay as contemplated by section 7(1) of PAJA. The delay exceeded the statutory 180-day period, and the applicant did not provide sufficient justification for condonation or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 409
Parties
Applicant: Kir Projects; Respondent: Actophambili Roads; Respondent: South African National Roads Agency; Respondent: Manopix; Respondent: Hearty Oak
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 October 2023
Case Number
5857/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of the urgent application.
Judges
D. P. Mthimunye, P. J. Loubser
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Judicial Review Delay, Mootness, Tender Award Review
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Judicial Review Delay Mootness Tender Award Review

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kir Projects

Applicant

Actophambili Roads

Respondent

South African National Roads Agency

Respondent

Manopix

Respondent

Hearty Oak

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's delay in prosecuting the review application was unreasonable under section 7(1) of PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the court has authority to entertain the review application given the delay and the mootness of the matter.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice justify adjudication of a moot application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prosecute the review application with the required urgency, resulting in an unreasonable delay as contemplated by section 7(1) of PAJA. The delay exceeded the statutory 180-day period, and the applicant did not provide sufficient justification for condonation or demonstrate that the interests of justice required the court to entertain the matter. Furthermore, the contracts in question had already been fully executed and payments made, rendering the application moot and without practical effect. The court concluded that it lacked authority to adjudicate the review application and dismissed it with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of the urgent application.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of the urgent application of 5 December 2022.