Mathatha General Trading CC and Others v Head of the Department of Safety, Security and Liason Mpumalanga Province and Others (2350/2022) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 37 (14 July 2023)

Mathatha General Trading CC and Others v Head of the Department of Safety, Security and Liason Mpumalanga Province and Others (2350/2022) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 37 (14 July 2023)

The court found that the impugned order was erroneously granted because the Department and successful bidders were not afforded an opportunity to file opposing papers on the merits of the review application, as required by Rule 53. The review application was not ripe for hearing, and the procedural requirements for furnishing the record and allowing proper opposition were not met. The right to be heard, entrenched in Section 34 of the Constitution, was violated. The order was therefore rescindable under Rule 42(1)(a), as it was granted in default and in error. The applicants failed to set out proper grounds for review in their founding affidavits, and the court should have confined its...

Citation
[2023] ZAMPMBHC 37
Parties
Applicant: Mathatha General Trading CC; Applicant: Mabotwane Security Services CC; Applicant: Mafoko Security Patrols (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Head of the Department of Safety, Security and Liason Mpumalanga Province; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council Mpumalanga Department of Community Safety, Security and Liaison; Respondent: Nhlanhla Yethy Security Services; Respondent: Tubatse Security Services; Respondent: E7 Security Services; Respondent: LL Security Services; Respondent: Praxos 324; Respondent: Ezingeni Security Services; Respondent: African Renaissance Security Services; Respondent: Bothile Security Services; Respondent: Xilota Projects Security; Respondent: Phepha MV Security Services; Respondent: Amabuso Security Solutions; Respondent: Dixoscape Security; Respondent: Gubis 85 Solutions; Respondent: Both Best Trading & Projects; Respondent: Sinqobile Equestrian Services; Respondent: Bilane Security; Respondent: Medtex Security Services
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 July 2023
Case Number
2350/2022
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Interim Order
Outcome
Rescission application granted; the order of 23 June 2022 is rescinded and set aside.
Judges
KGOELE
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Rule 42 Uniform Rules, Rule 53 Review Procedure, Audi Alteram Partem, Interim Interdict, Constitutional Invalidity of Tender
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Rescission of Judgment Rule 42 Uniform Rules Rule 53 Review Procedure Audi Alteram Partem Interim Interdict Constitutional Invalidity of Tender

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathatha General Trading CC

Applicant

Mabotwane Security Services CC

Applicant

Mafoko Security Patrols (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Head of the Department of Safety, Security and Liason Mpumalanga Province

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council Mpumalanga Department of Community Safety, Security and Liaison

Respondent

Nhlanhla Yethy Security Services

Respondent

Tubatse Security Services

Respondent

E7 Security Services

Respondent

LL Security Services

Respondent

Praxos 324

Respondent

Ezingeni Security Services

Respondent

African Renaissance Security Services

Respondent

Bothile Security Services

Respondent

Xilota Projects Security

Respondent

Phepha MV Security Services

Respondent

Amabuso Security Solutions

Respondent

Dixoscape Security

Respondent

Gubis 85 Solutions

Respondent

Both Best Trading & Projects

Respondent

Sinqobile Equestrian Services

Respondent

Bilane Security

Respondent

Medtex Security Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order granted on 23 June 2022 should be rescinded under Rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the Department and successful bidders were denied the right to be heard before the review order was granted.
  3. 3 Whether the impugned order was erroneously granted in the absence of proper opposition and procedural compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the impugned order was erroneously granted because the Department and successful bidders were not afforded an opportunity to file opposing papers on the merits of the review application, as required by Rule 53. The review application was not ripe for hearing, and the procedural requirements for furnishing the record and allowing proper opposition were not met. The right to be heard, entrenched in Section 34 of the Constitution, was violated. The order was therefore rescindable under Rule 42(1)(a), as it was granted in default and in error. The applicants failed to set out proper grounds for review in their founding affidavits, and the court should have confined its...

Court Disposition

Rescission application granted; the order of 23 June 2022 is rescinded and set aside.

Orders

  • The order including the cost order granted on 23 June 2022 by Roelofse AJ is hereby rescinded and set aside.
  • All parties are directed to, by no later than 24 July 2023, approach the Registrar with a duly completed Form B for case management of the proceedings for adjudication of Part B of the first applicant's notice of motion.