Mamayile Business Enterprise CC v MEC for the Department of Transport and Community Safety Limpopo Province (1186/2024) [2024] ZALMPPHC 32 (2 March 2024)

Mamayile Business Enterprise CC v MEC for the Department of Transport and Community Safety Limpopo Province (1186/2024) [2024] ZALMPPHC 32 (2 March 2024)

The court found that the applicant met the threshold for urgency and condoned non-compliance with the Rules. The supplementary affidavit was permissible under Rule 53(4) as it was filed within the prescribed period after delivery of the record. The non-joinder point failed because the relief sought did not prejudice...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZALMPPHC 32
Parties
Applicant: Mamayile Business Enterprise CC; Respondent: MEC for the Department of Transport and Community Safety Limpopo Province; Respondent: Mushoma Security Services and Projects CC
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 March 2024
Case Number
1186/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Urgent Review Application
Outcome
Application granted. The award of Tender 786 to the second respondent is declared constitutionally invalid and set aside. Any service level agreement concluded pursuant to the award is set aside. Costs awarded against the respondents on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Deane
Legal Topics
Tender Validity Period, Review of Administrative Action, Urgent Application, Non Joinder, Supplementary Affidavit, Just and Equitable Remedy
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Tender Validity Period Review of Administrative Action Urgent Application Non Joinder Supplementary Affidavit Just and Equitable Remedy

Source-derived case record

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mamayile Business Enterprise CC

Applicant

MEC for the Department of Transport and Community Safety Limpopo Province

Respondent

Mushoma Security Services and Projects CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Urgent Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application should be heard as urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to file a supplementary affidavit under Rule 53(4).
  3. 3 Whether non-joinder of all bidders rendered the application defective.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant met the threshold for urgency and condoned non-compliance with the Rules. The supplementary affidavit was permissible under Rule 53(4) as it was filed within the prescribed period after delivery of the record. The non-joinder point failed because the relief sought did not prejudice the other bidders, whose participation had already been terminated by administrative action. On the merits, the court held that the tender validity period expired on 30 November 2023, and no valid extension was sought from all bidders prior to expiry. The first respondent's subsequent award of the tender to the second respondent was therefore constitutionally invalid. The...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The award of Tender 786 to the second respondent is declared constitutionally invalid and set aside. Any service level agreement concluded pursuant to the award is set aside. Costs awarded against the respondents on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • This application is heard as an urgent application in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  • The decision of the first respondent to award Tender PUDP 786 for the provision of physical security services at Head Office to the second respondent is declared constitutionally invalid and is set aside.