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
JK Structures CC v City of Cape Town and Others (leave to appeal) (14485 / 2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 93 (8 May 2023)
The High Court refused leave to appeal and declined to implement its prior tender-review judgment pending appeal, finding no reasonable prospects or irreparable harm.
JK Structures CC v City of Cape Town and Others (14485/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 31; [2023] 2 All SA 431 (WCC) (20 February 2023)
The court held that the City of Cape Town misconstrued the CIDB Act and regulations by requiring a 7CE grading for the tender. The regulations are concerned only with construction works contracts, not framework agreements. The qualifying grading should be determined by the value of individual works contracts to be concluded under the framework, not the total anticipated expenditure. The City's interpretation led to unbusinesslike and unfair results, excluding contractors capable of performing the actual works. The City's decision was materially influenced by an error of law and failed to cons…
Source excerpt
Waco Africa (PTY) Limited t/a SGB-Cape v Eskom SOC Limited and Others; Southey Contracting (PTY) Limited v Eskom SOC Limited and Others (5798/2021; 3047/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 827 (21 October 2022)
The High Court granted leave to appeal in two review matters about Eskom’s tender award, applying the higher post-2013 threshold and finding reasonable prospects of success.
Zikhulise Cleaning Maintenance & Transport CC v The Chairman of the Investigating Committee of the Construction Industry Development Board and Others (1112/2018) [2019] ZASCA 181; [2020] 1 All SA 677 (SCA) (2 December 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the majority of the charges against the appellant did not relate to conduct governed by the Code of Conduct, as they concerned dealings between the contractor and the Board rather than conduct within the procurement process. Only charges 18 to 20 potentially fell within the Code's ambit, as they involved interaction with another department of state as employer. However, the prescribed investigatory procedures under Regulation 28 were not followed, as no proper preliminary investigation or report by an investigating officer was conducted before the inquiry…
Source excerpt
Schauman Builders CC v MEC: Department of Roads and Public Works, Northern Cape and Another (734/2016) [2016] ZANCHC 60 (11 November 2016)
The court found that the Department followed a two-stage tender process, with the closing date for submission of bills of quantities extended to 3 or 4 December 2015. This extension resulted in a new validity period of 90 days from the extended closing date, as provided for in the CIDB Standard Conditions of Tender. The evidence, including departmental reports and meeting minutes, supported the respondent's version that the validity period was properly extended and the award was made within the valid period. The applicant failed to provide a complete record or rebut the respondent's version.…
Source excerpt
Gross Border Development Consultants (Pty) Ltd v MEC: North West Provincial Government: Department of Local Government and Human Settlements and Others (M253/15) [2015] ZANWHC 42 (7 August 2015)
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie right to participate in a lawful, fair, and competitive procurement process, which was infringed by the Department's reliance on a closed database and failure to publicly advertise the contracts. While the applicant's complaints regarding CIDB grading for certain respondents were not substantiated, the awards to the seventh and eighth respondents were prima facie irregular and invalid under the CIDB Act, as they lacked the necessary grading for the value of work awarded. The requirements for an interim interdict were met regardi…
Source excerpt
Explore more
