Viva Engineering Project CC and Others v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (64340/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 372 (5 June 2015)

Viva Engineering Project CC and Others v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (64340/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 372 (5 June 2015)

The court held that the second applicant, a purported joint venture, lacked locus standi because the joint venture never existed. A non-existent entity cannot have legal standing or constitutional rights. The court found no reasonable prospect that another court would overturn this finding. Furthermore, the court determined that a bidder disqualified in the first phase of a phased evaluation bidding process does not have locus standi to challenge decisions made in subsequent phases, as such interests are not real but hypothetical or academic. Regarding SDB9, the court found its terms reasonable, material, and constitutional, serving the legitimate purpose of preventing bid rigging and...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 372
Parties
Applicant: Viva Engineering Project CC; Applicant: Corro-Wear Joint Venture; Respondent: Minister of Water Affairs; Respondent: Mrs Z Mathe NO; Respondent: Methabica Consulting; Respondent: Stelenbosch Naco; Respondent: Belta Services; Respondent: Pro-Electro Services
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 June 2015
Case Number
64340/13
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment Delivered on 17 March 2015
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.
Judges
A B Rossouw
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Phased Evaluation Bidding, Bid Rigging, Constitutional Own Interest Standing, Costs of Senior Counsel
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Locus Standi Phased Evaluation Bidding Bid Rigging Constitutional Own Interest Standing Costs of Senior Counsel

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Viva Engineering Project CC

Applicant

Corro-Wear Joint Venture

Applicant

Minister of Water Affairs

Respondent

Mrs Z Mathe NO

Respondent

Methabica Consulting

Respondent

Stelenbosch Naco

Respondent

Belta Services

Respondent

Pro-Electro Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment Delivered on 17 March 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unsuccessful bidder has locus standi to challenge decisions in subsequent phases of a phased evaluation bidding process.
  2. 2 Whether the second applicant, as a joint venture, had legal standing given the alleged non-existence of the joint venture.
  3. 3 Whether the terms of SDB9 were unreasonable, immaterial, or unconstitutional, or caused unfair treatment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the second applicant, a purported joint venture, lacked locus standi because the joint venture never existed. A non-existent entity cannot have legal standing or constitutional rights. The court found no reasonable prospect that another court would overturn this finding. Furthermore, the court determined that a bidder disqualified in the first phase of a phased evaluation bidding process does not have locus standi to challenge decisions made in subsequent phases, as such interests are not real but hypothetical or academic. Regarding SDB9, the court found its terms reasonable, material, and constitutional, serving the legitimate purpose of preventing bid rigging and...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.