South Africa Case Law

Norland Construction (Pty) Ltd v Chris Hani Development Agency (SOC) Limited and Another (18/2022)

Norland Construction (Pty) Ltd v Chris Hani Development Agency (SOC) Limited and Another (18/2022) [2024] ZAECMKHC 10 (23 January 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

18/2022

Judge

Govindjee

The court found that the Agency's reliance on the probity report was impermissible, as it constituted ex post facto reasoning not present at the time of the decision. The certification requirements for the tender documents were not shown to be material, as the documents themselves were provided and the Agency failed to explain the necessity of certification. The exclusion of Norland's bid was based on an ultra-strict approach that undermined constitutional values, particularly cost-effectiveness, given Norland's substantially lower bid price. The court held that the Agency misdirected itself…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Bid Responsiveness
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Certification Requirements
• Public Tender Review

City of Cape Town v Ramm System (Pty) Ltd t/a Ramm Technologies and Another (11437/2022)

City of Cape Town v Ramm System (Pty) Ltd t/a Ramm Technologies and Another (11437/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 197 (10 August 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11437/2022

Judge

LekhULENI

The High Court held that the City’s tender award had expired, rendering the review and counter-application moot, and found the bid’s compliance statement materially departed from the specifications.

• Municipal Procurement
• Bid Responsiveness
• Self Review By State
• Contractual Variation
• Section 217 Constitution
• Municipal Finance Management Act

Minister: National Department of Public Works & Infrastructure v HBC Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others - Appeal (CA213/2021)

Minister: National Department of Public Works & Infrastructure v HBC Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others - Appeal (CA213/2021) [2023] ZAECMKHC 109 (3 August 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA213/2021

Judges

Hartle, Majiki, Bands

The court held that the Bid Evaluation Committee's decisions to declare the second and third respondents' bids administratively responsive were unlawful, as both failed to comply with mandatory requirements stipulated in the tender documents. The Department's differential treatment of non-compliance was unjustified and inconsistent with the principles of fairness and transparency in public procurement. The risk assessment process, while permissible as objective criteria if properly stipulated, was not determinative in this instance because only the first respondent remained as a responsive bi…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Judicial Review Under Paja
• Bid Responsiveness
• Objective Criteria In Tender Awards
• Condonation Of Noncompliance

Roadmac Surfacing (Pty) Ltd v MEC For The Department of Police, Roads and Transport, Free State Province and Another (171/2022)

Roadmac Surfacing (Pty) Ltd v MEC For The Department of Police, Roads and Transport, Free State Province and Another (171/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 318 (14 November 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

171/2022

Judges

POHL, AJ, MOLITSOANE, J

The court found that the applicant failed to submit a complete and compliant bid, as required by the tender documentation and the Preferential Procurement Regulations. The tender documents clearly stipulated the need to specify the 30% subcontracting value and to complete all required information. The applicant's omission to provide the subcontracting value and its indication of 'not applicable' rendered its bid non-responsive. The court applied the Plascon-Evans rule to resolve factual disputes and concluded that the first respondent's decision to disqualify the applicant and award the tende…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Preferential Procurement Regulations
• Bid Responsiveness
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Halifax Group (Pty) Ltd v Mandela Bay Development Agency (1998/2021)

Halifax Group (Pty) Ltd v Mandela Bay Development Agency (1998/2021) [2021] ZAECPEHC 41 (12 August 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1998/2021

Judge

Govindjee

The applicant failed to comply with the material requirements of the tender by not amending the bills of quantities as stipulated in the addenda, resulting in a material deviation that rendered its bid non-responsive under the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act and the CIDB Standard. The Bid Evaluation Committee was entitled to disqualify the bid at stage 3, and the timing of the disqualification did not prejudice the applicant's rights. The deviation was not trivial or minor, but affected the scope, quality, and performance of the works. The applicant's prospects of success in the…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Interim Interdict
• Bid Responsiveness
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Material Deviation
• Judicial Review

Belrex 528 CC v Chairperson, Cape Town Regional Bid Adjudication Committee and Others (39549/2016)

Belrex 528 CC v Chairperson, Cape Town Regional Bid Adjudication Committee and Others (39549/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 613 (27 September 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

39549/2016

Judge

T S Madima

The court found that the RBAC had discretion under the Standard Conditions of Tender to condone the missing signature, as the language used was not peremptory. The omission was not material and could have been remedied without prejudice to other bidders. The RBAC acted unreasonably and irrationally by rescinding the award solely on the basis of the missing signature, without affording the applicant an opportunity to cure the defect. The RBAC was functus officio after communicating the award, and its subsequent rescission was unlawful. The process was procedurally unfair as the applicant was n…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Procurement
• Bid Responsiveness
• Functus Officio
• Procedural Fairness

Bizstorm 51 CC T/A Global Force Security Services v Witzenberg Municipality and Another (13794/13)

Bizstorm 51 CC T/A Global Force Security Services v Witzenberg Municipality and Another (13794/13) [2014] ZAWCHC 83 (30 May 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13794/13

Judge

Schippers

The court found that the applicant's bid was non-responsive for multiple reasons: failure to provide proof of public liability insurance of at least R5 million, failure to quote on all items in the pricing schedule, and failure to furnish a valid PSIRA certificate. The Municipality's evaluation process was fair and consistent, as all bidders who did not meet the insurance requirement were treated equally. The applicant's argument that it should have been allowed to supplement its bid was rejected, as the bid requirements were clear and strict compliance was necessary to ensure fairness and tr…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Bid Responsiveness
• Substitution Of Decision
• Principle Of Legality