State Information Technology Agency SOC Limited v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Limited (CCT254/16) [2017] ZACC 40; 2018 (2) BCLR 240 (CC); 2018 (2) SA 23 (CC) (14 November 2017)

State Information Technology Agency SOC Limited v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Limited (CCT254/16) [2017] ZACC 40; 2018 (2) BCLR 240 (CC); 2018 (2) SA 23 (CC) (14 November 2017)

The Constitutional Court held that the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) does not apply to an organ of state seeking to review and set aside its own decision. Section 33 of the Constitution creates rights to just administrative action for private persons, not organs of state, and PAJA was enacted to give effect to those rights. The appropriate basis for review by an organ of state of its own conduct is the principle of legality, not PAJA. The award of the contract by SITA was not pursuant to a competitive bidding process and was inconsistent with section 217 of the Constitution, rendering it constitutionally invalid. However, SITA delayed for nearly 22 months before...

Citation
[2017] ZACC 40
Parties
Applicant: State Information Technology Agency SOC Limited; Respondent: Gijima Holdings (Pty) Limited
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2017
Case Number
CCT254/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal; Constitutional Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; contract and extensions declared constitutionally invalid, but Gijima not divested of contractual rights; costs awarded against SITA.
Judges
Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Mojapelo, Pretorius, Zondo
Legal Topics
Legality Review, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Public Procurement, Delay in Review, Constitutional Invalidity
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Legality Review Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Public Procurement Delay in Review Constitutional 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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State Information Technology Agency SOC Limited

Applicant

Gijima Holdings (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal; Constitutional Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an organ of state may invoke PAJA to review and set aside its own decision.
  2. 2 Whether the principle of legality is the appropriate basis for such a review.
  3. 3 Whether the delay by SITA in instituting review proceedings should be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) does not apply to an organ of state seeking to review and set aside its own decision. Section 33 of the Constitution creates rights to just administrative action for private persons, not organs of state, and PAJA was enacted to give effect to those rights. The appropriate basis for review by an organ of state of its own conduct is the principle of legality, not PAJA. The award of the contract by SITA was not pursuant to a competitive bidding process and was inconsistent with section 217 of the Constitution, rendering it constitutionally invalid. However, SITA delayed for nearly 22 months before...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; contract and extensions declared constitutionally invalid, but Gijima not divested of contractual rights; costs awarded against SITA.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld in part.