Lambda Test Equipment CC v Broadband Infraco (Pty) Limited and Another (10/11872) [2011] ZAGPJHC 38 (13 May 2011)

Lambda Test Equipment CC v Broadband Infraco (Pty) Limited and Another (10/11872) [2011] ZAGPJHC 38 (13 May 2011)

The court found that the applicant delayed unreasonably in bringing the review application, only approaching the court sixteen months after becoming aware of the facts. By the time the matter was heard, the contract had been fully executed and the equipment delivered and used by the first respondent. The court held that setting aside the tender would be impractical and have no meaningful effect, as the position prevailing at the time of the award could not be restored. The court further found that, even assuming unlawful administrative action, the interests of certainty required that the contract be allowed to stand. The applicant's arguments regarding the allocation of points and lack of...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 38
Parties
Applicant: Lambda Test Equipment CC; Respondent: Broadband Infraco (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Coral-I-Solutions (Pty) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 May 2011
Case Number
10/11872
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Eeden
Legal Topics
Tender Review, Delay in Review, Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Public Finance Management Act, Unlawful Administrative Action
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Tender Review Delay in Review Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act Public Finance Management Act Unlawful Administrative Action

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

Lambda Test Equipment CC

Applicant

Broadband Infraco (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Coral-I-Solutions (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the award of the tender to the second respondent was unlawful and unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in bringing the review application precludes the granting of relief.
  3. 3 Whether the tender process was flawed due to the allocation of points and lack of opportunity to revise alternative tenders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant delayed unreasonably in bringing the review application, only approaching the court sixteen months after becoming aware of the facts. By the time the matter was heard, the contract had been fully executed and the equipment delivered and used by the first respondent. The court held that setting aside the tender would be impractical and have no meaningful effect, as the position prevailing at the time of the award could not be restored. The court further found that, even assuming unlawful administrative action, the interests of certainty required that the contract be allowed to stand. The applicant's arguments regarding the allocation of points and lack of...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.