Pro Secure (Pty) Ltd v Special Investigating Unit (LP/03/2022) [2024] ZAST 5 (24 July 2024)

Pro Secure (Pty) Ltd v Special Investigating Unit (LP/03/2022) [2024] ZAST 5 (24 July 2024)

The Tribunal found that the SIU is empowered by statute to institute proceedings in its own name or on behalf of the relevant state institution, and that the particulars of claim sufficiently allege contraventions of procurement law and irregular payments to Pro Secure. The excipient failed to demonstrate that no cause of action is disclosed on any reasonable interpretation of the pleadings. The argument regarding non-joinder is without substance, as the SIU is statutorily authorised to act in this manner. The Tribunal further held that the proceedings were not instituted under PAJA but on the principle of legality, rendering the prescriptive period argument meritless. The sixth ground of...

Citation
[2024] ZAST 5
Parties
Applicant: Pro Secure (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Special Investigating Unit; Defendant: Dr Thokozani Florence Mhlongo
Court
Special Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 July 2024
Case Number
LP/03/2022
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
K Pillay
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Non Joinder, Cause of Action, Public Procurement, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Prescription Period
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Locus Standi Non Joinder Cause of Action Public Procurement Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Prescription Period

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pro Secure (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Special Investigating Unit

Respondent

Dr Thokozani Florence Mhlongo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff (SIU) has locus standi to institute proceedings in its own name against the second defendant.
  2. 2 Whether there has been non-joinder of the relevant department as a necessary party.
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of claim disclose a cause of action against the second defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the SIU is empowered by statute to institute proceedings in its own name or on behalf of the relevant state institution, and that the particulars of claim sufficiently allege contraventions of procurement law and irregular payments to Pro Secure. The excipient failed to demonstrate that no cause of action is disclosed on any reasonable interpretation of the pleadings. The argument regarding non-joinder is without substance, as the SIU is statutorily authorised to act in this manner. The Tribunal further held that the proceedings were not instituted under PAJA but on the principle of legality, rendering the prescriptive period argument meritless. The sixth ground of...

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs to include costs consequent upon the engagement of two counsel.