Sparepro (Pty) Ltd v National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications and Others (38549/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 527 (4 June 2024)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
38549/2022
Judge
Neukircher
The High Court set aside an NRCS directive over brake-pad non-compliance, finding it late, procedurally unfair, and tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Hoku Investments (Pty) Ltd v Dr Pixley Kaisaka Seme Municipality and Others (69/2022) [2023] ZAMPMHC 44 (22 December 2023)
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Case number
69/2022
Judge
TV Ratshibvumo
High Court review challenge to a municipal land sale failed. The court held that public participation and statutory disposal requirements were sufficiently complied with.
City of Cape Town and Others v Sterea Digital CC and Another (A48/2023;18984/2020) [2023] ZAWCHC 293; [2024] 1 All SA 680 (WCC) (21 November 2023)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
A48/2023;18984/2020
Judges
Gamble, Samela, Cloete
The court held that the review application should have been limited to the grounds codified in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), specifically whether relevant considerations were ignored, whether there was procedural unfairness, and whether there was bias. The decision-makers considered all relevant facts, including the prior consent use for a school, and exercised their discretion within the statutory framework. The court a quo erred by substituting its own view for that of the administrators and by failing to respect the distinction between review and appeal. Allegations o…
Moshoeshoe v Master Of High Court and Others (003981/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1505 (5 October 2023)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
003981/2022
Judge
Noko
The High Court set aside the removal of an executrix and the appointment of her replacement for non-compliance with the Administration of Estates Act and PAJA.
Davhana Royal Family and Another v Premier of Limpopo Province and Others (339/2019) [2023] ZALMPTHC 6 (18 April 2023)
Court
Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou
Case number
339/2019
Judge
MV Semenya
The court reviewed and set aside a Limpopo decision restoring senior traditional leadership to Nnengwekhulu, finding procedural unfairness, irrationality, and bias.
Weinert and Another v Municipality of the City of Cape Town and Others (2582/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 252; [2023] 1 All SA 536 (WCC) (1 August 2022)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
2582/2022
Judge
P. S. Van Zyl
Homeowners failed to stop Cape Town from considering a restaurant rezoning application. The court held the bid was premature, barred by PAJA, and intrusive on municipal powers.
School Governing Body Paarlzicht Primary School v Member of the Executive Council for Education Western Cape and Others (14098/2019) [2021] ZAWCHC 23; [2021] 2 All SA 241 (WCC) (11 February 2021)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
14098/2019
Judge
LekhULENI
The court found that the applicant failed to prove bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias in the appointment of Mr Duraan. Allegations against the second respondent and Mr Dalvey were unsupported by evidence and contradicted by contemporaneous correspondence. The second respondent considered all relevant factors, including qualifications, experience, and psychological assessments, and exercised his discretion reasonably and within the statutory framework. The delay in launching the review application was explained by ongoing correspondence and attempts to resolve the matter without litigat…
Collins Sebola Financial Services (Pty) Ltd v South African Forestry Company SOC (Ltd) and Others (21375/20) [2021] ZAGPPHC 13 (14 January 2021)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
21375/20
Judge
Basson
The court found that the award of part of the tender to Phepha MV Security Service was unlawful and procedurally unfair. The Bid Adjudication Committee had twice recommended the applicant as the preferred bidder, based on the highest score under the PPPFA's 90:10 system and after considering all relevant criteria. The subsequent reversal of this recommendation was unexplained, lacked transparency, and was tainted by bias and irregular discount negotiations. The BAC failed to apply objective criteria and disregarded statutory procurement requirements. The applicant was entitled to review and s…
Telkom SA Soc Limited v Mncube NO and Others; Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd v Pillay NO and Others; Cell C (Pty) Limited v The Chairperson of ICASA and Others; Dimension Data Middle East & Africa (Pty) Ltd t.a Internet Solutions v ICASA and Others (55311/2015; 77029/2015; 82287/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 93 (26 February 2016)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
55311/2015; 77029/2015; 82287/2015
Judge
D S Fourie
The High Court set aside ICASA’s approval of Vodacom’s acquisition of control of Neotel’s licences, citing bias, failure to consider competition, and an unlawful equity condition.
Member of the executive Council Police Roads & Transport, Free State Provincial Department v Ritcom (Pty) Ltd (A159/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 241 (3 December 2015)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
A159/2015
Judges
A. F. Jordaan, K. J. Moloi
The court found that the tender awarded to the first respondent did not comply with the specifications and conditions set out in the bid documents, rendering it unacceptable. The process was not fair, equitable, transparent, or competitive, as the evaluation was biased in favour of the first respondent and failed to treat competitors equally. The Bid Evaluation Committee's comparison of tenders was misconceived and manipulated to favour the first respondent. There was no evidence that the specifications were lawfully extended or amended, and the absence of required minutes from clarification…
