Vishnu Munilall and Associates and Another v Director General Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (36796/07) [2008] ZAGPHC 176 (13 June 2008)

Vishnu Munilall and Associates and Another v Director General Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (36796/07) [2008] ZAGPHC 176 (13 June 2008)

The court found that the applicants failed to bring their review application within the time limits prescribed by PAJA, as the period to request reasons commenced when they became aware of the awards and expired well before they made their request. The applicants' contention that internal remedies had to be exhausted was rejected, as no such remedies existed in this case. The court held that the provision of reasons by the first respondent after the expiry of the time period did not cure the delay. Furthermore, the applicants did not demonstrate any irregularity in the tender process, and with more than two-thirds of the contract period having expired, it would be unjust and impractical...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 176
Parties
Applicant: Vishnu Munilall and Associates; Respondent: Director General: Department of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Director General: National Treasury; Respondent: Krino Transcriptions; Respondent: Veritas Legal Consortium; Respondent: ELT Pro Transcription; Respondent: Sneller DVP Consortium; Respondent: SET LK Consortium; Respondent: Transcription Africa Consortium
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2008
Case Number
36796/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Hartzenberg
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Tender Review, Exhaustion of Internal Remedies, Delay in Review, Fair Administrative Action
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Tender Review Exhaustion of Internal Remedies Delay in Review Fair Administrative Action

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vishnu Munilall and Associates

Applicant

Director General: Department of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Director General: National Treasury

Respondent

Krino Transcriptions

Respondent

Veritas Legal Consortium

Respondent

ELT Pro Transcription

Respondent

Sneller DVP Consortium

Respondent

SET LK Consortium

Respondent

Transcription Africa Consortium

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' review application was brought within the time limits prescribed by PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were required to exhaust internal remedies before approaching the court.
  3. 3 Whether any irregularity in the tender award process was demonstrated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to bring their review application within the time limits prescribed by PAJA, as the period to request reasons commenced when they became aware of the awards and expired well before they made their request. The applicants' contention that internal remedies had to be exhausted was rejected, as no such remedies existed in this case. The court held that the provision of reasons by the first respondent after the expiry of the time period did not cure the delay. Furthermore, the applicants did not demonstrate any irregularity in the tender process, and with more than two-thirds of the contract period having expired, it would be unjust and impractical...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.