State Information Technology Agency Soc Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd (641/2015) [2016] ZASCA 143; [2016] 4 All SA 842 (SCA); 2017 (2) SA 63 (SCA) (30 September 2016)

State Information Technology Agency Soc Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd (641/2015) [2016] ZASCA 143; [2016] 4 All SA 842 (SCA); 2017 (2) SA 63 (SCA) (30 September 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) applies when an organ of state seeks to set aside its own administrative decisions. SITA's decision to award the contract to Gijima constituted administrative action and was subject to review under PAJA. SITA failed to comply with the 180-day time limit prescribed by s 7 of PAJA and did not apply for condonation under s 9. The attempt to bypass PAJA by framing the application as a legality review was impermissible, as PAJA is intended to be the exclusive pathway for reviewing administrative action. Even if the matter were approached as a legality review, SITA failed to provide a satisfactory...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 143
Parties
Appellant: State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd; Respondent: Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2016
Case Number
641/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Cachalia, Bosielo, Tshiqi, Van der Merwe, Dlodlo
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Public Procurement, Legality Review, Constitutional Supremacy, Unreasonable Delay, Contract Invalidity
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Public Procurement Legality Review Constitutional Supremacy Unreasonable Delay Contract 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd

Appellant

Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does PAJA apply to an organ of state seeking to set aside its own administrative decision?
  2. 2 Can an organ of state bypass PAJA and rely directly on the constitutional principle of legality to challenge its own contract?
  3. 3 Is SITA's delay in instituting proceedings to set aside the contract unreasonable and, if so, can it be condoned?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) applies when an organ of state seeks to set aside its own administrative decisions. SITA's decision to award the contract to Gijima constituted administrative action and was subject to review under PAJA. SITA failed to comply with the 180-day time limit prescribed by s 7 of PAJA and did not apply for condonation under s 9. The attempt to bypass PAJA by framing the application as a legality review was impermissible, as PAJA is intended to be the exclusive pathway for reviewing administrative action. Even if the matter were approached as a legality review, SITA failed to provide a satisfactory...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.