South Africa Case Law

Nexus Forensic Services (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Employment and Labour and Others (74499/2019)

Nexus Forensic Services (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Employment and Labour and Others (74499/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 689 (13 November 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

74499/2019

Judge

N Davis

The High Court set aside a forensic services tender awarded after the extended bid validity period had expired, holding the later award and contract invalid.

• Tender Validity Period
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Bid Evaluation
• Contract Award
• Setting Aside Invalid Contract

Insitu Pipelines (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (73050/2009)

Insitu Pipelines (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (73050/2009) [2010] ZAGPPHC 595 (25 March 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

73050/2009

Judge

Raulinga

The court found that the applicants, by withdrawing their tender offer, breached the procurement precepts and rendered their offer non-responsive. The subsequent invitation by the first respondent to reinstate the applicants was a bona fide mistake but did not create a valid tender offer. The first respondent demonstrated reasonable and justifiable grounds for disqualifying the applicants and awarding the contract to the joint venture. The administrative action taken by the first respondent was not irregular and did not warrant review or setting aside. The application was accordingly dismisse…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Procurement
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Administrative Action Review
• Tender Disqualification
• Fairness In Tender Process
• Contract Award

Umfolozi Transport (Edms) Bpk v Minister van Vervoer en Andere (231/95)

Umfolozi Transport (Edms) Bpk v Minister van Vervoer en Andere (231/95) [1997] ZASCA 8; ; [1997] 2 All SA 548 (A); (13 March 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

231/95

Judges

Van Heerden, Vivier, Howie, Olivier, Plewman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that TAS tendered as principal and was the proper contracting party. The Board's procedures were administratively fair, and sufficient information was provided to enable a proper exercise of discretion. The Board was entitled to award the contract to the lowest tender unless material risks were present, and no evidence of actual bias or unfairness was established. The statutory framework did not prohibit the Board from considering tenders from state-related entities, and the regulatory safeguards were adequate. Umfolozi's existing contract had lawfully expired…

Source excerpt

• Tender Review
• Institutional Bias
• Procedural Fairness
• Contract Award
• Judicial Review