Tshitadingaka Contractors CC v Construction Industry Development Board (061751/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 257 (8 March 2024)

Tshitadingaka Contractors CC v Construction Industry Development Board (061751/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 257 (8 March 2024)

The court found that while the applicant had established a prima facie right to remain on the respondent's register, it failed to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured it. The applicant's claim of financial harm was speculative, as there was no certainty of future tenders being awarded. The court further held that section 19(7) of the Construction Industry Development Board Act did not constitute an alternative remedy for the relief sought, as the applicant was concerned with future tenders rather than completion of existing contracts. However, the lack of persuasive evidence regarding irreparable harm and the balance of...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 257
Parties
Applicant: Tshitadingaka Contractors CC; Respondent: Construction Industry Development Board
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2024
Case Number
061751/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Review Application (part B)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
E M Kubushi
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Review of Administrative Action, Alternative Remedy, Prima Facie Right, Irreparable Harm
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Review of Administrative Action Alternative Remedy Prima Facie Right Irreparable Harm

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tshitadingaka Contractors CC

Applicant

Construction Industry Development Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Review Application (part B)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim interdictory relief pending the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right to the relief sought.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faces a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm if interim relief is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicant had established a prima facie right to remain on the respondent's register, it failed to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured it. The applicant's claim of financial harm was speculative, as there was no certainty of future tenders being awarded. The court further held that section 19(7) of the Construction Industry Development Board Act did not constitute an alternative remedy for the relief sought, as the applicant was concerned with future tenders rather than completion of existing contracts. However, the lack of persuasive evidence regarding irreparable harm and the balance of...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.