WDR Earthmoving Enterprises CC and Another v Joe Gqabi District Municipality and Others (CA298/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 45 (13 March 2017)

WDR Earthmoving Enterprises CC and Another v Joe Gqabi District Municipality and Others (CA298/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 45 (13 March 2017)

The Municipality was legally required by the Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations to demand audited annual financial statements for the past three years from bidders for tenders exceeding R10 million. The joint venture failed to comply with this requirement, as Cotterrell’s Construction CC did not submit audited statements for the full period. The tender documents and conditions empowered the Municipality to treat such a bid as non-responsive and to exclude it from consideration. The court found no reviewable irregularity in the exclusion of the joint venture's bid. Furthermore, once the joint venture's bid was excluded as non-responsive, it lost standing to challenge the award...

Citation
[2017] ZAECGHC 45
Parties
Appellant: WDR Earthmoving Enterprises CC; Appellant: Cotterrell’s Construction CC; Respondent: Joe Gqabi District Municipality; Respondent: The Municipal Manager: Joe Gqabi District Municipality; Respondent: The Chairperson of the Bid Adjudication Committee: Joe Gqabi District Municipality; Respondent: Amadwala Trading 363 CC
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2017
Case Number
CA298/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Review Judgment; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
C Plasket, E Revelas, SM Mbenenge
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Tender Responsiveness, Municipal Supply Chain Management, Judicial Review, Standing to Review, Bid Disqualification
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Public Procurement Tender Responsiveness Municipal Supply Chain Management Judicial Review Standing to Review +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WDR Earthmoving Enterprises CC

Appellant

Cotterrell’s Construction CC

Appellant

Joe Gqabi District Municipality

Respondent

The Municipal Manager: Joe Gqabi District Municipality

Respondent

The Chairperson of the Bid Adjudication Committee: Joe Gqabi District Municipality

Respondent

Amadwala Trading 363 CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Review Judgment; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Municipality commit a reviewable irregularity by excluding the joint venture's bid for failure to submit audited annual financial statements for three years?
  2. 2 Was the decision to award the tender to Amadwala Trading 363 CC regular and lawful?
  3. 3 Does a non-responsive bidder have standing to challenge the award of a tender to another party?

Ratio Decidendi

The Municipality was legally required by the Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations to demand audited annual financial statements for the past three years from bidders for tenders exceeding R10 million. The joint venture failed to comply with this requirement, as Cotterrell’s Construction CC did not submit audited statements for the full period. The tender documents and conditions empowered the Municipality to treat such a bid as non-responsive and to exclude it from consideration. The court found no reviewable irregularity in the exclusion of the joint venture's bid. Furthermore, once the joint venture's bid was excluded as non-responsive, it lost standing to challenge the award...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.