Lornavision (Pty) Ltd v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited (19502/17) [2017] ZAGPJHC 208 (1 August 2017)

Lornavision (Pty) Ltd v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited (19502/17) [2017] ZAGPJHC 208 (1 August 2017)

The court found that the appointment of Lornavision as a service provider to the SABC and the agreement concluded were unlawful, as they contravened the SABC's procurement policy and the constitutional and legislative framework governing public procurement. There was no evidence of exceptional, urgent, or emergency circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed competitive bidding process. Lornavision's services were neither unique nor exceptionally beneficial, and other service providers were available. The SABC's delay in launching the review application was condoned due to overwhelming prospects of success and the public importance of the matter. The doctrine of estoppel could...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 208
Parties
Applicant: Lornavision (Pty) Limited; Respondent: South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2017
Case Number
19502/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment After Hearing of Main Application and Counter Application
Outcome
Lornavision's main application is dismissed. The SABC's counter-application succeeds; the agreement is reviewed and set aside. Condonation for delay is granted to the SABC.
Judges
Shangisa
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Judicial Review, Condonation for Delay, Principle of Legality, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Estoppel
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Public Procurement Judicial Review Condonation for Delay Principle of Legality Promotion of Administrative Justice Act +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lornavision (Pty) Limited

Applicant

South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment After Hearing of Main Application and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of Lornavision as a service provider to the SABC and the agreement concluded was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether deviation from the SABC's procurement policy was justified under the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the SABC's delay in launching the review application should be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appointment of Lornavision as a service provider to the SABC and the agreement concluded were unlawful, as they contravened the SABC's procurement policy and the constitutional and legislative framework governing public procurement. There was no evidence of exceptional, urgent, or emergency circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed competitive bidding process. Lornavision's services were neither unique nor exceptionally beneficial, and other service providers were available. The SABC's delay in launching the review application was condoned due to overwhelming prospects of success and the public importance of the matter. The doctrine of estoppel could...

Court Disposition

Lornavision's main application is dismissed. The SABC's counter-application succeeds; the agreement is reviewed and set aside. Condonation for delay is granted to the SABC.

Orders

  • Lornavision's main application is dismissed.
  • Condonation is granted to the SABC for the late bringing of the counter-application.