Siyangena Technologies (Pty) Ltd v PRASA and Others (487/2021) [2022] ZASCA 149; [2023] 1 All SA 74 (SCA); 2023 (2) SA 51 (SCA) (1 November 2022)

Siyangena Technologies (Pty) Ltd v PRASA and Others (487/2021) [2022] ZASCA 149; [2023] 1 All SA 74 (SCA); 2023 (2) SA 51 (SCA) (1 November 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the procurement contracts between PRASA and Siyangena were constitutionally invalid due to pervasive irregularities and corruption in the procurement process. The delay in PRASA's self-review application was condoned, as the new Board acted reasonably once the true extent of the malfeasance was uncovered. Siyangena was found not to be an innocent party, but complicit or at least a beneficiary of the irregularities. The remedial order for an independent engineer to assess the value of works was upheld as a just and equitable remedy, ensuring neither party would be unduly benefitted or prejudiced. The Court further sanctioned Siyangena's attorneys by...

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 149
Parties
Appellant: Siyangena Technologies (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa; Respondent: Retired Justice Ezra Goldstein; Respondent: Retired Justice Meyer Joffe; Amicus Curiae: #UniteBehind
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 November 2022
Case Number
487/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Costs for preparation, perusal, or copying of the record are disallowed for the appellant's attorneys.
Judges
Ponnan, Van der Merwe, Plasket, Chetty, Salie-Hlope
Legal Topics
Legality Review, Public Procurement Irregularities, Just and Equitable Remedy, Delay Condonation, Remedial Discretion, Costs Sanction
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Legality Review Public Procurement Irregularities Just and Equitable Remedy Delay Condonation Remedial Discretion +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siyangena Technologies (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

Respondent

Retired Justice Ezra Goldstein

Respondent

Retired Justice Meyer Joffe

Respondent

#UniteBehind

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the procurement contracts between PRASA and Siyangena were constitutionally invalid due to irregularities in the procurement process.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in PRASA's self-review application should be condoned.
  3. 3 What constitutes a just and equitable remedy following the declaration of invalidity of the contracts.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the procurement contracts between PRASA and Siyangena were constitutionally invalid due to pervasive irregularities and corruption in the procurement process. The delay in PRASA's self-review application was condoned, as the new Board acted reasonably once the true extent of the malfeasance was uncovered. Siyangena was found not to be an innocent party, but complicit or at least a beneficiary of the irregularities. The remedial order for an independent engineer to assess the value of works was upheld as a just and equitable remedy, ensuring neither party would be unduly benefitted or prejudiced. The Court further sanctioned Siyangena's attorneys by...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Costs for preparation, perusal, or copying of the record are disallowed for the appellant's attorneys.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The appellant’s attorneys shall not be entitled to recover any of the costs associated with the preparation, perusal or copying of the record.