Mabotwane Security Services and Others v City Of Ekhurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023/071950) [2024] ZAGPJHC 488 (14 May 2024)

Mabotwane Security Services and Others v City Of Ekhurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023/071950) [2024] ZAGPJHC 488 (14 May 2024)

The applicants are entitled to access the documents forming part of the record of the tender award decision in terms of rule 53(1)(b). The only evidence of confidentiality was the unsupported assertion by the first and second respondents' attorney, which is insufficient. No claims of confidentiality were made by the third to twelfth respondents, who are the parties whose interests would be affected. The first and second respondents had no basis to impose a confidentiality regime. As the applicants sought an order for less than their full entitlement, the court made the draft order an order of court, granting access to the documents subject to the proposed confidentiality regime.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 488
Parties
Applicant: Mabotwane Security Services CC; Applicant: KNM Security CC; Applicant: LL Security CC; Applicant: MCC Security & Projects CC; Applicant: Azeem Mohammad; Applicant: Zabalaza Enterprise (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: City Of Ekhurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Dr Imogen Mashazi N.O.; Respondent: Nist Investments CC; Respondent: GS Secure (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: SSG Security Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Tactical Security Services CC; Respondent: Ezingeni Security & Cleaning (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Bravospan 90 CC; Respondent: Masingita Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Carewell Holdings 5 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: SOS Protecsure National Division CC; Respondent: Motane Investment CC; Respondent: The Special Investigating Unit; Respondent: Minister of Finance: Enoch Godongwana N.O.; Respondent: Combined Provate Investigations (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 May 2024
Case Number
2023/071950
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Order Granting Access to Documents in Tender Review Proceedings
Outcome
Order granted: Applicants are entitled to access the documents forming part of the record of the tender award decision, subject to the confidentiality regime set out in the draft order.
Judges
H A van der Merwe
Legal Topics
Rule 53 Record, Confidentiality in Tender Documents, Review of Tender Award
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Rule 53 Record Confidentiality in Tender Documents Review of 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mabotwane Security Services CC

Applicant

KNM Security CC

Applicant

LL Security CC

Applicant

MCC Security & Projects CC

Applicant

Azeem Mohammad

Applicant

Zabalaza Enterprise (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

City Of Ekhurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Dr Imogen Mashazi N.O.

Respondent

Nist Investments CC

Respondent

GS Secure (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

SSG Security Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Tactical Security Services CC

Respondent

Ezingeni Security & Cleaning (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Bravospan 90 CC

Respondent

Masingita Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Carewell Holdings 5 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

SOS Protecsure National Division CC

Respondent

Motane Investment CC

Respondent

The Special Investigating Unit

Respondent

Minister of Finance: Enoch Godongwana N.O.

Respondent

Combined Provate Investigations (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Order Granting Access to Documents in Tender Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the applicants entitled to access the documents forming part of the record of the tender award decision under rule 53(1)(b).
  2. 2 Is there a factual basis for imposing a confidentiality regime on the documents sought.
  3. 3 Who is entitled to claim confidentiality over tender documents in review proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants are entitled to access the documents forming part of the record of the tender award decision in terms of rule 53(1)(b). The only evidence of confidentiality was the unsupported assertion by the first and second respondents' attorney, which is insufficient. No claims of confidentiality were made by the third to twelfth respondents, who are the parties whose interests would be affected. The first and second respondents had no basis to impose a confidentiality regime. As the applicants sought an order for less than their full entitlement, the court made the draft order an order of court, granting access to the documents subject to the proposed confidentiality regime.

Court Disposition

Order granted: Applicants are entitled to access the documents forming part of the record of the tender award decision, subject to the confidentiality regime set out in the draft order.

Orders

  • The first respondent is directed to make the documents sought by the applicants available to them, subject to the confidentiality regime set out in the order.