VIP Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Finance and Others (24799/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 75 (9 February 2016)

VIP Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Finance and Others (24799/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 75 (9 February 2016)

The court found that the applicants were not provided with reasons for the administrative action taken against them, namely their prohibition from participating in state contracts and their listing as restricted suppliers. The Bid Adjudication Committee failed to observe its own resolution to allow the applicants to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 75
Parties
Applicant: VIP Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Ignatius Wilhen Henning; Applicant: Pieter van Immerzeel; Applicant: Stefanus Prinsloo; Applicant: Johan Jansen van Rensburg; Applicant: Joseph Ramathlodi Ramalope; Applicant: Graeme Arthur Lloyd Amdrose; Applicant: Stratford Fultner Pohl; Applicant: Irvin Bafana Sibisi; Respondent: Minister of Finance: Mr PJ Gordhan; Respondent: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Department of Finance: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Chairperson of the Bid Adjudication Committee: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Chairperson of the Bid Evaluation Committee: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 February 2016
Case Number
24799/2013
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Interlocutory Application and Points in Limine in Main Review
Outcome
Application to strike out replying affidavit dismissed; second point in limine dismissed with costs; costs awarded against second to fifth respondents.
Judges
MW Msimeki
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Audi Alteram Partem, Judicial Review, Striking Out Affidavit, Bid Adjudication Committee, Restricted Suppliers Listing
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Audi Alteram Partem Judicial Review Striking Out Affidavit Bid Adjudication Committee Restricted Suppliers Listing

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VIP Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Ignatius Wilhen Henning

Applicant

Pieter van Immerzeel

Applicant

Stefanus Prinsloo

Applicant

Johan Jansen van Rensburg

Applicant

Joseph Ramathlodi Ramalope

Applicant

Graeme Arthur Lloyd Amdrose

Applicant

Stratford Fultner Pohl

Applicant

Irvin Bafana Sibisi

Applicant

Minister of Finance: Mr PJ Gordhan

Respondent

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Department of Finance: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Chairperson of the Bid Adjudication Committee: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Chairperson of the Bid Evaluation Committee: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Interlocutory Application and Points in Limine in Main Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review application was brought out of time under section 7 of PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' replying affidavit should be struck out for introducing new matter.
  3. 3 Whether the Bid Adjudication Committee failed to observe the audi alteram partem rule before prohibiting the applicants from participating in state contracts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were not provided with reasons for the administrative action taken against them, namely their prohibition from participating in state contracts and their listing as restricted suppliers. The Bid Adjudication Committee failed to observe its own resolution to allow the applicants to make representations before imposing the sanction, thereby violating the audi alteram partem rule. The respondents' argument that the review application was out of time under section 7 of PAJA was rejected because the time period did not commence in the absence of reasons being furnished. The court further held that the applicants' replying affidavit did not introduce new...

Court Disposition

Application to strike out replying affidavit dismissed; second point in limine dismissed with costs; costs awarded against second to fifth respondents.

Orders

  • The second point in limine is dismissed with costs.
  • The interlocutory application to strike out the applicants' replying affidavit is dismissed.