Special Investigating Unit and Another v Maczola Tours CC and Others (NW01/2020) [2022] ZAST 24 (19 October 2022)

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Maczola Tours CC and Others (NW01/2020) [2022] ZAST 24 (19 October 2022)

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to substantiate their denial of inflated claims, providing only bald assertions without evidence of departmental verification. The applicants established that the respondents exaggerated the kilometres claimed under the contract, resulting in excess payment. The Tribunal held that prescription had not run, as the SIU investigation concluded in 2019 and the application was served within the statutory period. The Tribunal was not satisfied that joint and several liability was established against the second to fifth respondents, as their specific roles were not pleaded. Accordingly, the claim against the first respondent succeeded, subject to...

Citation
[2022] ZAST 24
Parties
Applicant: Special Investigating Unit; Applicant: MEC for Department of Community Safety & Transport Management; Respondent: Maczola Tours CC; Respondent: Tlhotlhomisang Mekwane Mack; Respondent: Tlhotlhomisang Goitsemodimo Arnold; Respondent: Tlhotlhomisang Lesego Mildred; Respondent: Tlhotlhomisang Poifo Ellen
Court
Special Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 October 2022
Case Number
NW01/2020
Procedural Posture
Monetary Judgment Application / Judgment
Outcome
The application against the first respondent succeeds with costs; the claim has not prescribed; supplementary affidavits are to be filed regarding the calculation of the claimed amount.
Judges
L.T. Modiba
Legal Topics
Public Procurement Irregularities, Prescription Act Application, Joint and Several Liability, Scholar Transport Tender, Special Investigating Unit, Monetary Relief
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Public Procurement Irregularities Prescription Act Application Joint and Several Liability Scholar Transport Tender Special Investigating Unit Monetary Relief

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Special Investigating Unit

Applicant

MEC for Department of Community Safety & Transport Management

Applicant

Maczola Tours CC

Respondent

Tlhotlhomisang Mekwane Mack

Respondent

Tlhotlhomisang Goitsemodimo Arnold

Respondent

Tlhotlhomisang Lesego Mildred

Respondent

Tlhotlhomisang Poifo Ellen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Monetary Judgment Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents submitted excessive claims to the Department under the scholar transport contract.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' claim for monetary relief against the respondents has prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether there is a dispute of fact incapable of resolution on the papers.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to substantiate their denial of inflated claims, providing only bald assertions without evidence of departmental verification. The applicants established that the respondents exaggerated the kilometres claimed under the contract, resulting in excess payment. The Tribunal held that prescription had not run, as the SIU investigation concluded in 2019 and the application was served within the statutory period. The Tribunal was not satisfied that joint and several liability was established against the second to fifth respondents, as their specific roles were not pleaded. Accordingly, the claim against the first respondent succeeded, subject to...

Court Disposition

The application against the first respondent succeeds with costs; the claim has not prescribed; supplementary affidavits are to be filed regarding the calculation of the claimed amount.

Orders

  • The application against the first respondent succeeds with costs.
  • It is declared that the applicants’ claim has not become prescribed.