South Africa Case Law

Chapman Fund Manager (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works and Another (25558/2021)

Chapman Fund Manager (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works and Another (25558/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 273 (26 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

25558/2021

Judge

C J van der Westhuizen

The court found that the extension of the contract was lawfully effected in accordance with the terms of the original agreement, which expressly provided for such an extension at the discretion of the first defendant and subject to mutual agreement. The evidence established that the extension was properly considered, approved by the Bid Committee, and accepted in writing by both parties. The defendants failed to present credible evidence of any breach of section 217(1) of the Constitution or any irregularity in the extension process. The court accepted the plaintiff's reliance on the 3P Consu…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Contract Extension
• Section 217 Constitution
• Tender Award
• Onus Of Proof
• Practice Note 8 Pfma

Tedcor Mbombela Waste (Pty) Ltd v Mbombela Local Municipality (3056/2018)

Tedcor Mbombela Waste (Pty) Ltd v Mbombela Local Municipality (3056/2018) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 16 (25 September 2020)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

3056/2018

Judge

Kgoele

The court upheld objections to proposed amendments to a waste-collection claim, finding the pleadings vague and embarrassing and the negotiorum gestio case inadequately pleaded.

• Pleading Requirements
• Contract Extension
• Municipal Procurement
• Negotiorum Gestio
• Vagueness And Embarrassment
• Pleading-requirements

Bovicon Consulting Engineers CC v Member of the Executive Council: Police, Roads and Transport (Free State Provincial Government) (3797/2014)

Bovicon Consulting Engineers CC v Member of the Executive Council: Police, Roads and Transport (Free State Provincial Government) (3797/2014) [2019] ZAFSHC 263 (5 December 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3797/2014

Judge

S Chesiwe

The court found that the SLA between the parties expired on its anniversary date and was not validly extended, as the agreement contained a non-variation clause requiring written amendments. There was no written approval or evidence of extension by the Head of Department, and oral or implied extensions were precluded by the contract terms and public procurement law. However, the court held that the defendant was unjustly enriched by the plaintiff's services rendered after expiry, as the department continued to benefit from those services and acknowledged value for money. The plaintiff acted i…

Source excerpt

• Service Level Agreement
• Contract Extension
• Unjust Enrichment
• Public Finance Management Act
• Non Variation Clause

Marais NO and Others v Varicor Nineteen (Pty) Lts t/a Bp Atlantic (843/16)

Marais NO and Others v Varicor Nineteen (Pty) Lts t/a Bp Atlantic (843/16) [2017] ZASCA 46 (30 March 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

843/16

Judges

Tshiqi, Theron, Mathopo, Van der Merwe, Coppin

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a 2003 depot arrangement was an extension of the Trust’s existing diesel supply contract, not a new personal contract with Ms Müller.

• Contract Extension
• Onus Of Proof
• Suretyship
• Quasi Mutual Assent
• Contract-extension
• Onus-of-proof

Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Department of Transport and Others (44095/2012)

Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Department of Transport and Others (44095/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 46 (9 February 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44095/2012

Judge

Potterill

The court held that the Basson 1 and Basson 2 orders remained binding and enforceable until the Constitutional Court order of 9 November 2016. All work performed and PRQs approved prior to that date must be paid and processed by the Department of Transport. The Constitutional Court order did not retrospectively set aside the previous High Court orders; its silence on Basson 1 and 2 was because those orders were not before it. The respondents' refusal to pay for work done and PRQs approved prior to 9 November 2016 was unlawful. However, the court declined to order approvals or payments for wor…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Contract Extension
• Turnkey Agreement
• Public Administration
• Court Order Enforcement
• Migration Plan

Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Department of Transport (792/2015)

Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Department of Transport (792/2015) [2015] ZASCA 200; [2016] 1 All SA 465 (SCA) (2 December 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

792/2015

Judges

Brand, Cachalia, Majiedt, Saldulker, Mbha

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents were in contempt of multiple extant court orders requiring compliance with the eNaTIS contract and its extension, regardless of any alleged invalidity of the extension. The court found that the Department's counter-application to set aside the extension was time-barred under section 7 of PAJA, as no adequate explanation for the five-year delay was provided and the collateral challenge doctrine was not available to organs of State. The court confirmed that court orders must be obeyed until set aside, and the legality of the underlying contr…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Contract Extension
• Public Procurement
• Paja Time Bar
• Interdictory Relief

Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Department of Transport and Others (44095/12)

Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Department of Transport and Others (44095/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 421 (23 June 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44095/12

Judge

Hughes

The court dismissed Tasima’s urgent application, upheld the counter-application, reviewed and set aside the 2010 contract extension, and declared it void ab initio.

• Contract Extension
• Contempt Of Court
• Transfer Management Plan
• Collateral Review
• Public Procurement
• Void Ab Initio

Bam v Alfred Nzo Development Agency (Pty) Ltd and Others (CA&R6/15)

Bam v Alfred Nzo Development Agency (Pty) Ltd and Others (CA&R6/15) [2015] ZAECMHC 58 (11 June 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CA&R6/15

Judges

Pickering, Chetty, Dawood

Appeal dismissed: the CEO contract was not validly extended for two years, and the appellant’s later challenge to a six-month extension failed.

• Contract Extension
• Service Level Agreement
• Board Resolutions
• Consultation Requirement
• Companies Act Section 74
• Contract-extension

Burke v Schreuder (CA&R 31/2008)

Burke v Schreuder (CA&R 31/2008) [2009] ZANCHC 45 (4 September 2009)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R 31/2008

Judges

Majiedt R, Olivier R

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding both the alleged breach of the lease and the quantum of damages. The evidence did not establish that the respondent failed to give proper notice or that he neglected his maintenance obligations under the lease. The trial court's findings on credibility and fact were supported by the probabilities and the evidence, including the respondent's improvements to the property and the lack of reliable evidence on the property's condition at the start and end of the lease. The appellant also failed to prov…

Source excerpt

• Lease Agreement
• Burden Of Proof
• Damages Assessment
• Locus Standi
• Costs Award
• Contract Extension