Security Services Providers Forum v Mec of the Limpopo Provincial and Others (27234/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 115 (15 May 2013)
The court found that the applicant was aware of the new tender specifications and the potential for urgent proceedings as early as 15 April 2013. Despite setting a seven-day deadline for a response from the respondents, the applicant failed to act promptly when no reply was received. The application was only...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] ZAGPPHC 115
- Parties
- Applicant: Security Services Providers Forum; Respondent: The MEC of the Limpopo Provincial Department of Treasury; Respondent: Department of Roads and Transport; Respondent: Department of Education; Respondent: Department of Health; Respondent: The Head of the Department of the Limpopo of Treasury
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 27234/13
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Before Review
- Outcome
- Application struck off the roll with costs.
- Judges
- TM Makgoka
- Legal Topics
- Public Procurement, Interim Relief, Urgency, Review of Administrative Action
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Security Services Providers Forum
Applicant
The MEC of the Limpopo Provincial Department of Treasury
Respondent
Department of Roads and Transport
Respondent
Department of Education
Respondent
Department of Health
Respondent
The Head of the Department of the Limpopo of Treasury
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Before Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for interim relief is urgent and should be heard on an urgent basis.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim order pending review of the tender bid process.
- 3 Whether the respondents' failure to respond to correspondence justified urgent intervention by the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was aware of the new tender specifications and the potential for urgent proceedings as early as 15 April 2013. Despite setting a seven-day deadline for a response from the respondents, the applicant failed to act promptly when no reply was received. The application was only launched a week after it became clear that the respondents would not respond, and was set down for hearing on the day the bid closed, leaving insufficient time for meaningful relief. The court held that any urgency was self-created by the applicant's inaction and delay. Consequently, the application was not urgent and was struck off the roll with costs.
Court Disposition
Application struck off the roll with costs.
Orders
- The application is struck off the roll with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
NOT REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURTOF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 27234/13
DATE:15/05/2013
In the matter between:
SECURITY SERVICES PROVIDERS FORUM..........................................Applicant
and
THE MEC OF THE LIMPOPO PROVINCIAL
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY..................................................................First Respondent
DEPARTMENT OF ROADS AND TRANSPORT......................................Second Respondent
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION...............................................................Third respondent
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.......................................................................Fourth Respondent
THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
LIMPOPO OF TREASURY ….....................................................................Fifth Respondent
JUDGMENT
MAKGOKA, J:
[1] The applicant, seeks, on an urgent basis, an interim order that a consultation be held between it and the respondents, all members of the executive committee (MEC’s) in the Limpopo provincial government, to discuss certain issues arising from a tender bid no. TC/LP 20/2013 (the bid). The applicant is an umbrella body for business people in the security industry. Its members currently
provide security services to various departmental sites in the Limpopo Province arising from previous tenders advertised by the
respondents.
[2] The applicant seeks an interim order pending an order reviewing and setting aside certain administrative actions taken by the first and fifth respondents concerning the tender bid. The applicant also seeks to declare the tender bid as invalid and unconstitutional. The first, third, fourth and fifth respondents have filed a notice of intention to oppose, but have not filed any answering affidavits. The second respondent has filed a notice to abide the decision of this court.
[3] On 15 April 2013, an invitation to bid went on sale inviting the provision of physical security services for various Limpopo
provincial departments for the period of three years commencing from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2016. The bid was set to close yesterday, 14 May 2013, at 11 h00. The main complaint of the applicant and its members, is that the bid has introduced a range of new specifications
which the applicant contends, are unconstitutional, unjust and unfair.
[4] On 19 April 2013 the applicant, through its attorneys, delivered a letter to the first and the fifth respondents, respectively,
notifying them, among others, of their objections to the specifications and the grounds therefor. The letter called upon the first and fifth respondents to withdraw or cancel the bid; alternatively to postpone its closing date to enable the applicant to consult with the first and fifth respondents on the new procument specifications, with the undertaking that the bidding process will be
suspended pending consultation. The response sought from the first and fifth respondents was to be delivered within seven calendar days of delivery of the letter, failing which an urgent application would be launched to prevent the respondents from proceeding with the bid. There was no response.
[5] About five briefings of the bid were held, and attended by some members of the applicant, who, on each occasion, reiterated their concerns about, and objections against, the new specifications specifications. On 30 April 2013 applicant’s attorneys
delivered another letter to the respondents demanding their response. There still was no response. On 6 May 2013 this application was launched. Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Mtsweni, contested urgency. Mr. Bredenkamp SC, counsel for the applicant, submitted that the matter is urgent, given the fact that letters written to the respondents were not replied to.
[6] I disagree. The applicant and its members knew as early as 15 April 2013 of the new specifications. In the first letter to the first and fifth respondents, clear terms were put for a response. It is worth noting that in that letter, urgent application was mooted as a definite next step, should there be no response.
[7] In the founding affidavit, no explanation is furnished as to the inaction on the part of the applicant on the expiry of the seven days deadline set for a reply. By 30 April 2013 it was clear that the respondents were not going to reply to the applicant’s letters. This application was launched only a week later. The applicant, on its own version, was aware that the bid would close on 14 May 2013, yet did nothing to launch this application earlier. The application was set down for 10H00 on the day the bid closed, allowing only for only 1 hour for a possible hearing and order. That was ambitious.
[8] By the time the matter was heard, the bid had closed. The urgency, if any, was self-created by the applicant’s inaction.
[9] In the circumstances the application is struck off the roll with cost.
TM MAKGOKA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE OF HEARING : 14 MAY 2013
JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 15 MAY 2013
FOR THE APPLICANT : ADV BREDENKAMP SC together with ADV DA ROCHA
INSTRUCTED BY : NR MUNYAI ATTORNEYS, POLOKWANE
FOR THE RESPONDENTS : ADV DV MTSWENI
INSTRUCTED BY : STATE ATTORNEY, PRETORIA