Makhathini Medical Waste (Pty) Ltd and Another v MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal and Others (8721/21P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 151 (3 August 2023)
The court found that Buhle Waste's review application was instituted outside the 180-day period prescribed by PAJA, with no condonation sought, and was thus dismissed without consideration of the merits. The Department's tender document contained objective criteria for broadening market participation by limiting awards to one area per bidder, which was rational and in line with the PPPFA. Compass's bid was compliant, and the award was conditional on matching Makhathini's price, which Compass accepted within a reasonable time. The validity period of the tender was properly extended by the relevant bidders prior to the award. No basis existed for setting aside the award, and costs were...
- Citation
- [2023] ZAKZPHC 151
- Parties
- Applicant: Makhathini Medical Waste (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Buhle Waste (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal; Respondent: Compass Medical Waste Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Chairman, Bid Appeals Tribunal, KwaZulu-Natal; Respondent: MEC for Finance, KwaZulu-Natal
- Court
- Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 3 August 2023
- Case Number
- 8721/21P
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Final Judgment on Review and Intervention Applications
- Outcome
- Both review applications are dismissed with costs, except that the Department is not entitled to recover costs.
- Judges
- Poyo Dlwati JP
- Legal Topics
- Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Objective Criteria in Tender Awards, Bid Validity Period, Judicial Review Delay, Intervention Application
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Makhathini Medical Waste (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Buhle Waste (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal
Respondent
Compass Medical Waste Services (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Chairman, Bid Appeals Tribunal, KwaZulu-Natal
Respondent
MEC for Finance, KwaZulu-Natal
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment on Review and Intervention Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Buhle Waste's review application was instituted within the 180-day period required by PAJA.
- 2 Whether the Department established objective criteria in the tender document justifying the award to Compass.
- 3 Whether the validity period of the tender was properly extended prior to the award.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that Buhle Waste's review application was instituted outside the 180-day period prescribed by PAJA, with no condonation sought, and was thus dismissed without consideration of the merits. The Department's tender document contained objective criteria for broadening market participation by limiting awards to one area per bidder, which was rational and in line with the PPPFA. Compass's bid was compliant, and the award was conditional on matching Makhathini's price, which Compass accepted within a reasonable time. The validity period of the tender was properly extended by the relevant bidders prior to the award. No basis existed for setting aside the award, and costs were...
Court Disposition
Both review applications are dismissed with costs, except that the Department is not entitled to recover costs.
Orders
- The review application by the second applicant is dismissed with costs, save that no costs shall be recoverable by the first respondent.
- The second applicant is ordered to pay the first applicant’s and the first respondent’s costs in the intervention application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment