Special Investigating Unit and Another v Vision View Productions CC (2019/20801) [2020] ZAGPJHC 421 (19 June 2020)

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Vision View Productions CC (2019/20801) [2020] ZAGPJHC 421 (19 June 2020)

The court held that the contract between SABC and the respondent was invalid due to procurement irregularities and non-compliance with section 217 of the Constitution and related policies. While the respondent was not found to be corrupt, its ignorance of procurement requirements did not justify full retention of contractual rights. The court a quo erred in granting remedial orders that allowed the respondent to claim the full contract price, including profit, contrary to Constitutional Court precedent. The correct just and equitable remedy is to allow the respondent to recover only its reasonable costs incurred, not profit, thereby vindicating the Constitution and protecting the public...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 421
Parties
Applicant: Special Investigating Unit; Applicant: South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited; Respondent: Vision View Productions CC
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2020
Case Number
2019/20801
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal succeeds in part; remedial orders of the court a quo are set aside and replaced.
Judges
D Mlambo, S E Weiner, R Keightley
Legal Topics
Public Procurement Irregularity, Just and Equitable Remedy, Section 172 Constitution, Unjustified Enrichment, Declaration of Invalidity
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Public Procurement Irregularity Just and Equitable Remedy Section 172 Constitution Unjustified Enrichment Declaration of Invalidity

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Special Investigating Unit

Applicant

South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited

Applicant

Vision View Productions CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate remedy under section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution after a contract is declared invalid due to procurement irregularities?
  2. 2 Should the respondent retain rights under an invalid contract or be limited to common law remedies for unjustified enrichment?
  3. 3 Did the court a quo exercise its discretion under section 172(1)(b) correctly in preserving the respondent's rights under the contract?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the contract between SABC and the respondent was invalid due to procurement irregularities and non-compliance with section 217 of the Constitution and related policies. While the respondent was not found to be corrupt, its ignorance of procurement requirements did not justify full retention of contractual rights. The court a quo erred in granting remedial orders that allowed the respondent to claim the full contract price, including profit, contrary to Constitutional Court precedent. The correct just and equitable remedy is to allow the respondent to recover only its reasonable costs incurred, not profit, thereby vindicating the Constitution and protecting the public...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds in part; remedial orders of the court a quo are set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the court a quo's order are set aside and replaced.
  • The respondent must file an audited statement of expenses, income, and net profit under the contract within 30 days.