Scientific Group (Pty) Limited and Another v South African National Blood Services and Others (5495/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 159 (18 March 2022)

Scientific Group (Pty) Limited and Another v South African National Blood Services and Others (5495/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 159 (18 March 2022)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish genuine urgency as required by Uniform Rule 6(12)(b). The applicants were aware of the relevant facts and the outcome of the tender process months before launching the urgent application. Their delay in instituting proceedings rendered any urgency self-created. Furthermore, the contract they sought to interdict had already been concluded prior to the application, making the relief sought academic. The court held that Rules of Court and Practice Directives must be strictly adhered to, and failure to do so results in adverse consequences. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and costs were awarded...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 159
Parties
Applicant: The Scientific Group (Pty) Limited; Applicant: Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics; Respondent: South African National Blood Services (NPC); Respondent: Bio-Rad Laboratories (Pty) Limited; Respondent: IEPSA (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Sitetech Supplies (Pty) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2022
Case Number
5495/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict; Opposed on Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
Adams J
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Interim Interdict, Self Created Urgency, Uniform Rule 6 12, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Administrative Law Public Procurement Interim Interdict Self Created Urgency Uniform Rule 6 12 Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Scientific Group (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics

Applicant

South African National Blood Services (NPC)

Respondent

Bio-Rad Laboratories (Pty) Limited

Respondent

IEPSA (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Sitetech Supplies (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict; Opposed on Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants established sufficient urgency to justify the hearing of the application on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to interim interdictory relief restraining the implementation of the tender award.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in launching the application constitutes self-created urgency.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish genuine urgency as required by Uniform Rule 6(12)(b). The applicants were aware of the relevant facts and the outcome of the tender process months before launching the urgent application. Their delay in instituting proceedings rendered any urgency self-created. Furthermore, the contract they sought to interdict had already been concluded prior to the application, making the relief sought academic. The court held that Rules of Court and Practice Directives must be strictly adhered to, and failure to do so results in adverse consequences. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and costs were awarded...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • The first and second applicants’ urgent application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The first and second applicants, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, shall pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the urgent application, including costs consequent upon the employment of two Counsel where so employed.