Mabotwane Security Services CC and Others v Sekhukhune District Municipality and Others (4291/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 97 (20 August 2024)

Mabotwane Security Services CC and Others v Sekhukhune District Municipality and Others (4291/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 97 (20 August 2024)

The court found that the acting municipal manager's decision to appoint the third respondent for all four clusters contravened the clear terms of the tender, which required four preferred service providers, one per cluster. The empowering provision did not permit a single bidder to be appointed for all clusters. The supply chain management policy did not authorize the acting municipal manager to deviate from the Bid Adjudication Committee's recommendations; the only permissible action was to refer the matter back for reconsideration. Both committees had recommended four different entities, and the manager's unilateral appointment was unauthorized. The court rejected the preliminary...

Citation
[2024] ZALMPPHC 97
Parties
Applicant: Mabotwane Security Services CC; Applicant: Brown Dogs Security Services CC; Applicant: Letona 6 Security Pty Ltd; Respondent: Sekhukhune District Municipality; Respondent: M N Rampedi; Respondent: Tubatse Security Services Pty Ltd
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 August 2024
Case Number
4291/2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Opposed Application, Following Special Allocation
Outcome
Application succeeds to the extent that the award of the tender to the third respondent is set aside; the tender is remitted for re-issue and finalization within 45 court days.
Judges
Monene
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Municipal Supply Chain Management, Judicial Review of Tender Awards, Exhaustion of Internal Remedies, Separation of Powers
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Municipal Supply Chain Management Judicial Review of Tender Awards Exhaustion of Internal Remedies Separation of Powers

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mabotwane Security Services CC

Applicant

Brown Dogs Security Services CC

Applicant

Letona 6 Security Pty Ltd

Applicant

Sekhukhune District Municipality

Respondent

M N Rampedi

Respondent

Tubatse Security Services Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Opposed Application, Following Special Allocation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the acting municipal manager's decision to appoint only one bidder for all four clusters contravened the terms of the tender.
  2. 2 Whether the acting municipal manager was authorized to deviate from or reject the recommendations of the Bid Adjudication Committee.
  3. 3 Whether failure to exhaust internal remedies was fatal to the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the acting municipal manager's decision to appoint the third respondent for all four clusters contravened the clear terms of the tender, which required four preferred service providers, one per cluster. The empowering provision did not permit a single bidder to be appointed for all clusters. The supply chain management policy did not authorize the acting municipal manager to deviate from the Bid Adjudication Committee's recommendations; the only permissible action was to refer the matter back for reconsideration. Both committees had recommended four different entities, and the manager's unilateral appointment was unauthorized. The court rejected the preliminary...

Court Disposition

Application succeeds to the extent that the award of the tender to the third respondent is set aside; the tender is remitted for re-issue and finalization within 45 court days.

Orders

  • The decision of the first respondent to award Tender SK8/3/3/1-51/2022/2023 for security services for three years in respect of Cluster 1, Cluster 2, Cluster 3, and Cluster 4 to the third respondent is declared invalid, unlawful, and is reviewed and set aside.
  • Any agreement and/or service level agreements concluded between the first respondent and the third respondent pursuant to the tender award are declared invalid, unlawful, and are set aside.