Ntiyiso Consulting CC v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality (1215/2019) [2022] ZAFSHC 206 (22 August 2022)

Ntiyiso Consulting CC v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality (1215/2019) [2022] ZAFSHC 206 (22 August 2022)

The court found that the plaintiff's appointment and the Service Level Agreement did not comply with the mandatory legislative procurement prescripts, specifically Regulation 32 of the Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations. The plaintiff was appointed as part of a panel of consultants for KKDM, but this did not constitute a contract under which the defendant could lawfully procure services. The scope of work and pricing structure between the KKDM contract and the defendant's SLA did not mirror each other, and there was no evidence of demonstrable discounts or benefits for the defendant at the time of contracting. Compliance with Regulation 32 must be established at the time of...

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 206
Parties
Plaintiff: Ntiyiso Consulting CC; Defendant: Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 August 2022
Case Number
1215/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendant's counter-claim upheld.
Judges
C Reinders
Legal Topics
Municipal Procurement, Regulation 32, Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Service Level Agreement, Illegality of Contract, Competitive Bidding
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Municipal Procurement Regulation 32 Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act Service Level Agreement Illegality of Contract +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ntiyiso Consulting CC

Plaintiff

Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's appointment and the Service Level Agreement complied with the mandatory legislative procurement prescripts.
  2. 2 Whether Regulation 32 of the Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations was properly invoked.
  3. 3 Whether demonstrable discounts or benefits existed for the defendant in appointing the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's appointment and the Service Level Agreement did not comply with the mandatory legislative procurement prescripts, specifically Regulation 32 of the Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations. The plaintiff was appointed as part of a panel of consultants for KKDM, but this did not constitute a contract under which the defendant could lawfully procure services. The scope of work and pricing structure between the KKDM contract and the defendant's SLA did not mirror each other, and there was no evidence of demonstrable discounts or benefits for the defendant at the time of contracting. Compliance with Regulation 32 must be established at the time of...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendant's counter-claim upheld.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
  • It is declared that the appointment of plaintiff by defendant on or about 30 August 2017 is invalid, unenforceable and null and void.