Metro Projects CC and Another v Klerksdorp Local Municipality and Others (602/2002) [2003] ZASCA 91; [2004] 1 All SA 504 (SCA); 2004 (1) SA 16 (SCA) (22 September 2003)

Metro Projects CC and Another v Klerksdorp Local Municipality and Others (602/2002) [2003] ZASCA 91; [2004] 1 All SA 504 (SCA); 2004 (1) SA 16 (SCA) (22 September 2003)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the tender process was fundamentally unfair. A municipal official allowed the ninth respondent to augment its tender after the closing date and concealed this from the decision-making committee. The committee was misled into believing that the augmented offer was the original tender. This deception undermined the fairness and transparency required by law and prejudiced all other tenderers. The court held that the process lost its essential attribute of fairness, as mandated by the Local Government Transition Act and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. The award to the ninth respondent was not based on the tender submitted in response to the...

Citation
[2003] ZASCA 91
Parties
Appellant: Metro Projects CC; Appellant: African Unity Developers CC; Respondent: Klerksdorp Local Municipality
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2003
Case Number
602/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Review Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld; the award of the tender to the ninth respondent is set aside.
Judges
Zulman, Farlam, Nugent, Conradie, Heher
Legal Topics
Fair Tender Procedure, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Local Government Transition Act, Municipal Tender Award, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Fair Tender Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act Local Government Transition Act Municipal Tender Award Procedural Fairness

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Metro Projects CC

Appellant

African Unity Developers CC

Appellant

Klerksdorp Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the tender process conducted by the first respondent fair and compliant with statutory requirements?
  2. 2 Did the conduct of municipal officials in concealing and misrepresenting tender information vitiate the award of the tender?
  3. 3 Was the award of the tender to the ninth respondent valid in light of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act and the Local Government Transition Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the tender process was fundamentally unfair. A municipal official allowed the ninth respondent to augment its tender after the closing date and concealed this from the decision-making committee. The committee was misled into believing that the augmented offer was the original tender. This deception undermined the fairness and transparency required by law and prejudiced all other tenderers. The court held that the process lost its essential attribute of fairness, as mandated by the Local Government Transition Act and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. The award to the ninth respondent was not based on the tender submitted in response to the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; the award of the tender to the ninth respondent is set aside.

Orders

  • The award by the first respondent to the ninth respondent of tender CCE9/2001 is set aside.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.