Tedcor (Pty) Limited and Another v Mbombela Local Municipality and Another (A2211/2004, 11655/2004) [2006] ZAGPHC 221 (19 June 2006)

Tedcor (Pty) Limited and Another v Mbombela Local Municipality and Another (A2211/2004, 11655/2004) [2006] ZAGPHC 221 (19 June 2006)

The court found that the appellants instituted the review application within a reasonable time, as the period should run from when they became aware of the reasons for the tender award, which was 27 February 2004. The initial attempts to resolve the matter amicably were reasonable and did not constitute unreasonable delay. On the merits, the second respondent's tender was non-compliant with mandatory requirements, specifically the failure to include draft agreements with subcontractors and the municipality, which rendered the tender non-responsive and liable for elimination. The court held that the first respondent's decision to award the tender to the second respondent was invalid and...

Citation
[2006] ZAGPHC 221
Parties
Appellant: Tedcor (Pty) Limited; Appellant: Mbombella Waste Management CC; Respondent: Mbombella Local Municipality; Respondent: Telegenix 655 Trading CC
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2006
Case Number
A2211/2004, 11655/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Review Application; Costs Order Challenged
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The decision to award the tender to the second respondent is set aside and the matter remitted to the first respondent for reconsideration. The punitive costs order and costs of condonation application against the appellants are set aside.
Judges
S J Mynhardt, F G Preller, M N S Sithole
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Tender Adjudication, Preferential Procurement Policy, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Condonation, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Tender Adjudication Preferential Procurement Policy Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Condonation Costs Orders

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tedcor (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Mbombella Waste Management CC

Appellant

Mbombella Local Municipality

Respondent

Telegenix 655 Trading CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Review Application; Costs Order Challenged

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review application was instituted within a reasonable time as required by section 7 of PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent's decision to award the tender to the second respondent was lawful and compliant with tender specifications and procurement policy.
  3. 3 Whether the punitive costs order against the appellants was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants instituted the review application within a reasonable time, as the period should run from when they became aware of the reasons for the tender award, which was 27 February 2004. The initial attempts to resolve the matter amicably were reasonable and did not constitute unreasonable delay. On the merits, the second respondent's tender was non-compliant with mandatory requirements, specifically the failure to include draft agreements with subcontractors and the municipality, which rendered the tender non-responsive and liable for elimination. The court held that the first respondent's decision to award the tender to the second respondent was invalid and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The decision to award the tender to the second respondent is set aside and the matter remitted to the first respondent for reconsideration. The punitive costs order and costs of condonation application against the appellants are set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The decision of the first respondent to award the tender to the second respondent is reviewed and set aside.