VIP Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Finance Mr P J Gordhan and Others (24799/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 147 (20 April 2017)

VIP Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Finance Mr P J Gordhan and Others (24799/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 147 (20 April 2017)

The court found that the respondents failed to observe the audi alteram partem rule and did not provide the applicants with an opportunity to be heard before making the decision to prohibit them from participating in State contracts and listing their names on the restricted suppliers database. The respondents also failed to inform the applicants of their rights to review or request reasons, as required by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. The court held that the decision was procedurally unfair and unlawful, and that the applicants had made out a clear case for the relief sought. The review application was not out of time, as the applicants were not aware of the decision until...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 147
Parties
Applicant: VIP Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Ignatius Wilhelm Henning; Applicant: Pieter van Immerzeel; Applicant: Stefanus Prinsloo; Applicant: Johan Jansen van Rensburg; Applicant: Joseph Ramathlodi Ramalope; Applicant: Graeme Arthur Lloyd Ambrose; Applicant: Stratford Fultner Pohl; Applicant: Irvin Baffana 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
20 April 2017
Case Number
24799/2013
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment on Part B After Interlocutory and Preliminary Points Disposed
Outcome
Application succeeded; decisions of the bid committees prohibiting participation and listing applicants on the restricted suppliers database set aside; costs awarded against second to fifth respondents.
Judges
M W Msimeki
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Audi Alteram Partem, Judicial Review, Public Procurement, Rule 53 Application
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Audi Alteram Partem Judicial Review Public Procurement Rule 53 Application

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VIP Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Ignatius Wilhelm Henning

Applicant

Pieter van Immerzeel

Applicant

Stefanus Prinsloo

Applicant

Johan Jansen van Rensburg

Applicant

Joseph Ramathlodi Ramalope

Applicant

Graeme Arthur Lloyd Ambrose

Applicant

Stratford Fultner Pohl

Applicant

Irvin Baffana 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 / Final Judgment on Part B After Interlocutory and Preliminary Points Disposed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision by the bid committees to prohibit the first applicant from participating in contracts with organs of State for five years was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the listing of the applicants' names on the database of restricted suppliers was procedurally fair and lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were afforded an opportunity to be heard before the adverse decisions were taken.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to observe the audi alteram partem rule and did not provide the applicants with an opportunity to be heard before making the decision to prohibit them from participating in State contracts and listing their names on the restricted suppliers database. The respondents also failed to inform the applicants of their rights to review or request reasons, as required by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. The court held that the decision was procedurally unfair and unlawful, and that the applicants had made out a clear case for the relief sought. The review application was not out of time, as the applicants were not aware of the decision until...

Court Disposition

Application succeeded; decisions of the bid committees prohibiting participation and listing applicants on the restricted suppliers database set aside; costs awarded against second to fifth respondents.

Orders

  • The decision or resolution adopted by the Second Respondent's bid committees (the Fourth and Fifth Respondents) to prohibit the First Applicant from participating in contracts involving organs of State with effect from 23 July 2012 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The decision or resolution adopted by the Second Respondent's bid committees (the Fourth and Fifth Respondents) to publish and list the Applicants' names on the database of restricted suppliers kept and administered by the Department of National Treasury is reviewed and set aside.