Laser Transport Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd and Another (835/2018) [2019] ZASCA 140 (1 October 2019)

Laser Transport Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd and Another (835/2018) [2019] ZASCA 140 (1 October 2019)

The court found that the appeal was moot, as the contract in question was due to expire within three months and any decision would have no practical effect. The appellants' argument that a favourable decision would entitle them to a new four-year contract was rejected, as the tender was intended for commencement in 2015 and conditions had since changed. The court held that there was no discrete legal issue of public importance warranting the exercise of its discretion to hear the appeal. The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 140
Parties
Appellant: The Laser Transport Group (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Gin Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Neo Thando / Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd Joint Venture
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2019
Case Number
835/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Ponnan, Wallis, Dambuza, Mocumie, Dolamo
Legal Topics
Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Tender Review, Mootness, Objective Criteria in Tender Award
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act Tender Review Mootness Objective Criteria in Tender Award

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

Parties

The Laser Transport Group (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Gin Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Neo Thando / Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd Joint Venture

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal is moot given the imminent expiry of the contract period.
  2. 2 Whether the tender award to the respondents was lawful despite the appellants scoring the highest points and offering the lowest price.
  3. 3 Whether DIRCO was justified in cancelling the first tender and awarding the second tender to the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appeal was moot, as the contract in question was due to expire within three months and any decision would have no practical effect. The appellants' argument that a favourable decision would entitle them to a new four-year contract was rejected, as the tender was intended for commencement in 2015 and conditions had since changed. The court held that there was no discrete legal issue of public importance warranting the exercise of its discretion to hear the appeal. The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, which costs shall include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel.