South Africa Case Law

Aventino Ecotroopers Joint Venture and Others v MEC for the Department of Roads and Transport, Gauteng Province and Others (1233/2023)

Aventino Ecotroopers Joint Venture and Others v MEC for the Department of Roads and Transport, Gauteng Province and Others (1233/2023) [2025] ZASCA 32; 2025 (4) SA 419 (SCA) (31 March 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1233/2023

Judges

Nicholls, Mbatha, Unterhalter, Musi, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over road-maintenance tenders, holding the bid validity period was lawfully extended and Aventino was lawfully excluded.

• Public Procurement
• Bid Validity Period
• Disqualification Of Bidders
• Misrepresentation
• Restricted Supplier Listing
• Judicial Review

Beyond Forensics (Pty) Ltd v National Commissioner, South African Police Service and Others (046691/2023)

Beyond Forensics (Pty) Ltd v National Commissioner, South African Police Service and Others (046691/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 82 (1 February 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

046691/2023

Judge

R G Tolmay

The court held that the tender process complied with the relevant regulations. The computation of the bid validity period must follow section 4 of the Interpretation Act, excluding the first day and including the last, resulting in expiry on 2 November 2022. All eligible bidders, including ECM and ACINO, consented to the extension before expiry, either in substance or form. The error in not notifying Beyond Forensics of the second extension did not result in prejudice, as its bid was fully evaluated. The tender was not evaluated on functionality, so Regulation 5 did not apply. The decision no…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Procurement
• Bid Validity Period
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Extension Of Tender Validity

Makhathini Medical Waste (Pty) Ltd and Another v MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal and Others (8721/21P)

Makhathini Medical Waste (Pty) Ltd and Another v MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal and Others (8721/21P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 151 (3 August 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

8721/21P

Judge

Poyo Dlwati JP

High Court review of a KwaZulu-Natal health-care waste tender failed, with the court finding objective criteria, valid bid extensions, and a late Buhle review.

• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Objective Criteria In Tender Awards
• Bid Validity Period
• Judicial Review Delay
• Intervention Application
• Administrative-law

Masakhe Media (Pty) Ltd v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Others (3455/2021)

Masakhe Media (Pty) Ltd v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Others (3455/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 74 (16 March 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3455/2021

Judges

C. J. Musi, C. Reinders

The court found that the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality failed to comply with its own supply chain management policy and the law when it attempted to extend the bid validity period after expiry, without proper consent or authorisation. The awards to Provantage and Young were made after the tender process had ended and were therefore invalid. Young's bid was non-compliant and should not have been considered. The decisions were reviewable under PAJA and set aside for being unfair, irrational, and procedurally defective. In determining a just and equitable remedy, the court weighed the inter…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Tender Review
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Bid Validity Period
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Fronting
• Procedural Fairness

Defensor Eletronic Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Head of Department Northern Cape Department of Health and Another (CA&R659/2016)

Defensor Eletronic Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Head of Department Northern Cape Department of Health and Another (CA&R659/2016) [2017] ZANCHC 24 (17 March 2017)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R659/2016

Judges

Mamosebo, Snyders

The court found that the respondents, as organs of state, failed to ensure that the applicant's bid was considered and adjudicated within the prescribed and extended tender offer validity periods. The respondents provided no cogent explanation for the failure of the Bid Evaluation and Adjudication Committees to meet, nor for the lapse of the validity period. The subsequent steps taken by the department after the expiry of the validity period indicated that the process was not complete, and the applicant was entitled to expect a fair and transparent process. The court held that the respondents…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Judicial Review Under Paja
• Failure To Take Decision
• Bid Validity Period
• Procedural Fairness
• Extension Of Time