Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Oxior Civil Enterprices (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd and Another (2024/097461) [2025] ZAGPPHC 411 (30 April 2025)
The court granted urgent interim relief removing Eskom’s purchase block on the applicant’s supplier profile pending a criminal investigation.
Forensic Investigation Risk and Recovery Management (Pty) Ltd v Unemployment Insurance Fund and Others (2024-088430) [2024] ZAGPPHC 819 (20 August 2024)
The High Court granted an interim interdict stopping implementation of a UIF tender, finding the applicant showed a prima facie right, irreparable harm, and no adequate remedy.
Unyazi Rail (Pty) Ltd v Passenger Rail Agency Of South Africa and Others (60552/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 217 (14 March 2023)
The High Court refused urgent interim relief to stop a PRASA tender award, finding Unyazi had not shown a strong prima facie right or unlawful bid-bond conditions.
Roadmac Surfacing (PTY) Ltd v MEC for the Department of Police, Roads & Transport, Free State Province & Another (171/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 101 (2 June 2022)
The High Court granted an interim interdict stopping work on a road tender pending review, finding the applicant showed a prima facie right and likely irreparable harm.
Phillips v Grobler and Others (A291/17) [2019] ZAWCHC 157; [2020] 1 All SA 253 (WCC) (21 November 2019)
Appeal against an eviction order was upheld where the appellant’s life-long right of occupation, ESTA protection, and PIE fairness weighed against eviction.
Phumelela Dlomo JV Kantera Trading v Walter Sisulu Local Municipality and Others, Iziqhamo Zethu JV Noble Money v Walter Sisulu Local Municipality and Others (3729/2018, 3730/2018) [2018] ZAECGHC 138 (28 December 2018)
The High Court granted an interim interdict stopping implementation of two municipal tender awards to Amadwala pending review, finding the procurement process unfair and non-transparent.
Indwe Aviation (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another (14576/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 861 (27 November 2018)
The court found that the applicant was unfairly excluded at the functionality stage of the tender process due to a mechanical and irrational approach to scoring references and double standards applied by the Bid Evaluation Committee. The applicant was not afforded the same opportunities as the second respondent to supplement its bid, and relevant experience through its relationship with the Titan Helicopter Group was disregarded. The tender was awarded at a substantially higher price, contrary to the principles of fairness, transparency, and cost-effectiveness required by section 217 of the C…
Source excerpt
Raubex Construction (Pty) Ltd v Road Agency Limpopo SOC and Another (4460/2017) [2018] ZALMPPHC 1 (18 January 2018)
The court found that the tender process lapsed when the validity period expired without an award, and that the subsequent attempt to extend the validity period after expiry was unlawful and contrary to the requirements of fairness, transparency, and competitiveness under section 217(1) of the Constitution. The process followed by the first respondent in awarding the tender to the second respondent was flawed, as it excluded tenderers who did not consent to the extension and failed to comply with the constitutional and legislative procurement framework. The award of the tender was therefore in…
Source excerpt
Tlotlego (2017/34672), Ex parte [2017] ZAGPJHC 376 (8 December 2017)
High Court held that unpaid university fees and the absence of a degree certificate did not bar admission as an advocate under section 3 of the Act.
Sizisa Ukhanyo Trading 389 CC v Department of Sports, Recreation, Arts And Culture, Province of the Eastern Cape (535/12) [2015] ZAECBHC 30 (6 October 2015)
The court found that the special condition in the tender was manifestly ambiguous, as it failed to specify the requirements for the letters from associations and created confusion among tenderers. This ambiguity resulted in unfairness, as the criteria for compliance were not applied consistently, leading to the exclusion of some tenderers and the inclusion of the appellant. The court held that the tender process did not meet the standards of fairness, equity, transparency, and competitiveness required by section 217 of the Constitution and the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act. Co…
Source excerpt
Explore more
