Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd v Mayibuye Transport Corporation (EL757/15, ECD1557/15) [2015] ZAECELLC 18 (28 July 2015)

Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd v Mayibuye Transport Corporation (EL757/15, ECD1557/15) [2015] ZAECELLC 18 (28 July 2015)

The court held that the applicant was entitled to urgent interim relief because the respondent failed to comply with its own Supply Chain Management Policy by not advertising the tender in the government bulletin. The urgency was justified by the imminent implementation of the tender award, which would make any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZAECELLC 18
Parties
Applicant: Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mayibuye Transport Corporation
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 July 2015
Case Number
EL757/15, ECD1557/15
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Prior to Review
Outcome
Application granted. Interim interdict issued restraining respondent from implementing the tender award pending review.
Judges
S M Mbenenge
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Interim Interdict, Exhaustion of Internal Remedies, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Public Procurement Interim Interdict Exhaustion of Internal Remedies Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mayibuye Transport Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Prior to Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent interim interdictory relief restraining the respondent from implementing the tender award pending review.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to advertise the tender in the government bulletin rendered the process unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was required to exhaust internal remedies before approaching the court for interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant was entitled to urgent interim relief because the respondent failed to comply with its own Supply Chain Management Policy by not advertising the tender in the government bulletin. The urgency was justified by the imminent implementation of the tender award, which would make any subsequent review ineffective. The court found that section 7(2)(a) of PAJA does not bar applications for interim relief, and the internal remedies cited by the respondent did not constitute effective remedies in the circumstances. The requirements for an interim interdict were met: the applicant had a prima facie right to fair administrative action, irreparable harm would result...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Interim interdict issued restraining respondent from implementing the tender award pending review.

Orders

  • The applicant's non-compliance with the Rules of Court regarding service and notice is condoned; leave is granted to proceed as an urgent application.
  • The respondent is restrained and interdicted from proceeding with or implementing the tender process commenced by publishing the tender invitation on 22 May 2015 under bid reference number SCM 2015/16/04, pending finalisation of a review application to be instituted within 10 days of receipt of the full written...