Viva Engineering Projects CC and Another v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (64340/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 443 (5 June 2015)

Viva Engineering Projects CC and Another v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (64340/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 443 (5 June 2015)

The court found that the second applicant, being a non-existent joint venture, lacked locus standi and could not assert constitutional rights. The court held that a bidder disqualified in the first phase of a phased evaluation bidding process does not have standing to challenge decisions made in subsequent phases, as such interests are not real but hypothetical or academic. The court further determined that the terms of SDB9 were reasonable and necessary to prevent bid rigging, and there was no reasonable prospect that another court would find them unreasonable, immaterial, or unconstitutional. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and was...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 443
Parties
Applicant: Viva Engineering Projects CC; Applicant: Viva Engineering Project CC and 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 Following Judgment Delivered on 17 March 2015.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.
Judges
AB Rossouwa
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Phased Evaluation Bidding, Bid Rigging, Leave to Appeal, Constitutional Own Interest Standing
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Locus Standi Phased Evaluation Bidding Bid Rigging Leave to Appeal Constitutional Own Interest Standing

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

Viva Engineering Projects CC

Applicant

Viva Engineering Project CC and 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 Following Judgment Delivered on 17 March 2015.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second applicant, as a non-existent joint venture, had locus standi to bring the application.
  2. 2 Whether a bidder disqualified in the first phase of a phased evaluation bidding process has standing to challenge decisions in subsequent phases.
  3. 3 Whether the terms of SDB9 were unreasonable, immaterial, or unconstitutional, or caused unfair treatment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second applicant, being a non-existent joint venture, lacked locus standi and could not assert constitutional rights. The court held that a bidder disqualified in the first phase of a phased evaluation bidding process does not have standing to challenge decisions made in subsequent phases, as such interests are not real but hypothetical or academic. The court further determined that the terms of SDB9 were reasonable and necessary to prevent bid rigging, and there was no reasonable prospect that another court would find them unreasonable, immaterial, or unconstitutional. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and was...

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.