Asatico Civil and Construction (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (149200/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 95 (4 May 2016)

Asatico Civil and Construction (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (149200/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 95 (4 May 2016)

The court found that the respondent failed to disclose any bona fide defence to resist summary judgment. The respondent's reliance on the invalidity of the administrative act awarding the contract was insufficient, as no steps were taken to review or set aside the act, and the Oudekraal principle applies. The respondent admitted the amount due and confirmed payment in writing, and the alleged defences regarding the amount claimed and unlawful instructions were either unsupported or dependent on the invalidity argument, which was rejected. The application for leave to appeal was refused as there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 95
Parties
Applicant: Asatico Civil and Construction (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 May 2016
Case Number
149200/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
N Davis
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Invalid Administrative Action, Oudkraal Principle, Public Procurement, Bona Fide Defence
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Summary Judgment Invalid Administrative Action Oudkraal Principle Public Procurement Bona Fide Defence

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asatico Civil and Construction (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has disclosed a bona fide defence to resist summary judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the invalidity of the administrative act awarding the contract constitutes a sufficient defence.
  3. 3 Whether the amount claimed exceeds the appointment letter and is properly agreed upon.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to disclose any bona fide defence to resist summary judgment. The respondent's reliance on the invalidity of the administrative act awarding the contract was insufficient, as no steps were taken to review or set aside the act, and the Oudekraal principle applies. The respondent admitted the amount due and confirmed payment in writing, and the alleged defences regarding the amount claimed and unlawful instructions were either unsupported or dependent on the invalidity argument, which was rejected. The application for leave to appeal was refused as there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.