Searle and Others v Road Accident Fund and Others (3191/2013) [2013] ZAECPEHC 60 (31 December 2013)

Searle and Others v Road Accident Fund and Others (3191/2013) [2013] ZAECPEHC 60 (31 December 2013)

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie right to review the tender process and that the matter was urgent, with urgency not being self-created. However, the applicants failed to show a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if interim relief was not granted. The relief sought in the review would not guarantee the applicants any contract, but merely a fresh tender process. The court held that the argument that effective relief would be denied was alarmist, as only a short period would elapse before the review was heard, and the nature of the work allowed for manageable handover between panelists. Furthermore, the balance of convenience did not favour the...

Citation
[2013] ZAECPEHC 60
Parties
Applicant: Joubert Galpin Searle; Applicant: Rehana Khan Parker & Associates; Applicant: Z Abdurahman Attorneys; Respondent: The Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Bate Chubb & Dickson; Respondent: Friedman Scheckter; Respondent: Potelwa & Company; Respondent: Mnqandi Inc.; Respondent: Ketse Nonkwelo Inc.; Respondent: Rahman Inc.; Respondent: Tau Phalane Inc.; Respondent: Tomlison Mnguni James; Respondent: T M Chauke Incorporated; Respondent: Dwarika Naidoo & Company; Respondent: Matthysen & Van Vuuren; Respondent: Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs; Respondent: Mayat Nurick; Respondent: Lindsay Keller; Respondent: Sishi Incorporated; Respondent: Fourie Fismer Inc.; Respondent: Mohlala Attorneys; Respondent: Linda Mazibuko & Associates; Respondent: Mayats Attorneys; Respondent: Shereen Meersingh & Associates; Respondent: Diale Mogoshoa; Respondent: Nosuko Nxusani; Respondent: Maribana Makgoka; Respondent: Govindasamy Ndzingi Govender Inc.; Respondent: Kesi Moodley; Respondent: Tsebane Molaba Inc.; Respondent: Hajra Patel Inc.; Respondent: Duduzile Hlebela Inc.; Respondent: Robert Charles; Respondent: Mathobo Rambau Sigogo; Respondent: Nongogo Nuku Inc.; Respondent: Bokwa Attorneys
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 December 2013
Case Number
3191/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review
Outcome
Application for interim relief dismissed with costs; matter postponed for review hearing.
Judges
C Plasket
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Interim Interdict, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Urgency in Applications, Balance of Convenience
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Public Procurement Interim Interdict Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Urgency in Applications Balance of Convenience

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joubert Galpin Searle

Applicant

Rehana Khan Parker & Associates

Applicant

Z Abdurahman Attorneys

Applicant

The Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Bate Chubb & Dickson

Respondent

Friedman Scheckter

Respondent

Potelwa & Company

Respondent

Mnqandi Inc.

Respondent

Ketse Nonkwelo Inc.

Respondent

Rahman Inc.

Respondent

Tau Phalane Inc.

Respondent

Tomlison Mnguni James

Respondent

T M Chauke Incorporated

Respondent

Dwarika Naidoo & Company

Respondent

Matthysen & Van Vuuren

Respondent

Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs

Respondent

Mayat Nurick

Respondent

Lindsay Keller

Respondent

Sishi Incorporated

Respondent

Fourie Fismer Inc.

Respondent

Mohlala Attorneys

Respondent

Linda Mazibuko & Associates

Respondent

Mayats Attorneys

Respondent

Shereen Meersingh & Associates

Respondent

Diale Mogoshoa

Respondent

Nosuko Nxusani

Respondent

Maribana Makgoka

Respondent

Govindasamy Ndzingi Govender Inc.

Respondent

Kesi Moodley

Respondent

Tsebane Molaba Inc.

Respondent

Hajra Patel Inc.

Respondent

Duduzile Hlebela Inc.

Respondent

Robert Charles

Respondent

Mathobo Rambau Sigogo

Respondent

Nongogo Nuku Inc.

Respondent

Bokwa Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established the requirements for an interim interdict pending review of the award of tenders.
  2. 2 Whether the matter is urgent and urgency is not self-created.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have shown a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if interim relief is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie right to review the tender process and that the matter was urgent, with urgency not being self-created. However, the applicants failed to show a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if interim relief was not granted. The relief sought in the review would not guarantee the applicants any contract, but merely a fresh tender process. The court held that the argument that effective relief would be denied was alarmist, as only a short period would elapse before the review was heard, and the nature of the work allowed for manageable handover between panelists. Furthermore, the balance of convenience did not favour the...

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief dismissed with costs; matter postponed for review hearing.

Orders

  • The application of the first, second and third applicants for the relief set out in Part A of the notice of motion is dismissed.
  • The first, second and third applicants are directed to pay the costs, jointly and severally, of the first, tenth, twenty second, twenty sixth and thirtieth respondents, including, in the case of the first respondent, the costs of two counsel.