Radabel CC v National Metrology Institute of South Africa (11325/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 479 (29 June 2018)

Radabel CC v National Metrology Institute of South Africa (11325/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 479 (29 June 2018)

The court found that the respondent's tender committee reduced the applicant's functionality score from 85 to 75 points based on a subsequent adverse report from the same customer who had previously provided a compliant reference letter. The committee did not afford the applicant an opportunity to make representations regarding the new report before reducing the score and cancelling the bid. This omission constituted a procedural flaw and violated the applicant's right to just administrative action under the Constitution and PAJA. The respondent's point in limine regarding Rule 6(5)(d)(iii) was dismissed as unfounded. The decision to cancel the bid was reviewed and set aside, and the...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 479
Parties
Applicant: Radabel CC; Respondent: National Metrology Institute of South Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2018
Case Number
11325/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Motion for Review and Setting Aside of Administrative Decision
Outcome
Application granted in part; decision to cancel the bid reviewed and set aside; matter remitted for representations; costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
Senyatsi
Legal Topics
Tender Review, Procedural Fairness, Just Administrative Action, Bid Cancellation
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Tender Review Procedural Fairness Just Administrative Action Bid Cancellation

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 7 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Radabel CC

Applicant

National Metrology Institute of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Motion for Review and Setting Aside of Administrative Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant failed to address all points raised in the Rule 6(5)(d)(iii) Notice.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's decision to reduce the applicant's functionality score and cancel the bid was irrational, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair in violation of the applicant's right to just administrative action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's tender committee reduced the applicant's functionality score from 85 to 75 points based on a subsequent adverse report from the same customer who had previously provided a compliant reference letter. The committee did not afford the applicant an opportunity to make representations regarding the new report before reducing the score and cancelling the bid. This omission constituted a procedural flaw and violated the applicant's right to just administrative action under the Constitution and PAJA. The respondent's point in limine regarding Rule 6(5)(d)(iii) was dismissed as unfounded. The decision to cancel the bid was reviewed and set aside, and the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; decision to cancel the bid reviewed and set aside; matter remitted for representations; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent's decision to cancel the bid is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to afford the applicant an opportunity to make representations regarding the report by Ms Vermaak of the Department of Water and Sanitation.