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
Kwende Construction CC v Ditsobotla Local Municipality (604/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 119 (15 July 2025)
The court upheld Kwende Construction CC’s counter-application, ordering Ditsobotla Local Municipality to pay the outstanding certified debt plus interest and punitive costs.
Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Airports Company South Africa SOC Ltd and Others (2024/028669) [2024] ZAGPJHC 561 (30 May 2024)
The court found that the emergency tender issued by ACSA constituted administrative action subject to review under PAJA. The procurement process did not meet the legal requirements for an emergency situation, as security services could be sourced from the existing panel and no immediate risk justified bypassing a competitive process. The preference point system in the RFB was unlawful, relying on repealed regulations and lacking a valid Preferential Procurement Policy as required by the PPPFA and its 2022 regulations. The tender document was vague, contradictory, and failed to stipulate speci…
Source excerpt
Special Investigating Unit and Another v LNG (Pty) Ltd (GP03/2022) [2024] ZAST 1 (7 February 2024)
The Special Tribunal set aside a Gauteng Health PPE procurement to LNG, held the default-step objection failed, and ordered profit divestment and costs.
Special Investigating Unit v Vigario Consulting (Pty) Ltd and Others (MP07/2023) [2023] ZAST 11 (13 October 2023)
The Tribunal found that the SIU failed to make out a case for the legality review. The procurement of PPE by the Department of Health, Mpumalanga, was conducted under an approved deviation consistent with Treasury regulations and instructions applicable during the Covid-19 emergency. The SIU did not establish that the procurement failed to comply with the requirements of TNI 3/2020/21, nor did it show that the prices exceeded prescribed maximums or that Vigario was not properly registered. The SIU also failed to properly investigate and disclose relevant documents, and its case was not substa…
Source excerpt
Special Investigating Unit v Phathilizwi Training Institute and Another (EC06/2020) [2022] ZAST 11 (18 May 2022)
The Tribunal found that the extension of the original tender was unlawful because it did not comply with the prescribed emergency procurement process under Treasury Regulation 16A6.4 and National Treasury Practice Note 6 of 2007/2008. The extension was for a new service (Covid-19 campaign), not contemplated by the original tender, and was not properly authorized as a deviation. The evidence submitted by Phathilizwi was insufficient to prove that services were rendered to the extent claimed, and there was a contradiction regarding the number of employees involved. The Tribunal held that, even…
Source excerpt
Mabotwane Security Services CC v Pikitup Soc (Pty) Ltd and Others (1027/2018) [2019] ZASCA 164 (29 November 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a security tender appeal as moot, holding the sought relief would have no practical effect after the tender and contract expired.
Naphtronics (PTY) LTD v Ngaka Modiri Molema District Municipality (M379/15) [2018] ZANWHC 51 (25 October 2018)
The court found that the applicant failed to meet the higher threshold for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, as there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The court had already addressed all relevant issues in its previous judgment, including the justification for the procurement process, the constitution of the Emergency Bid Adjudication Committee, and the duration of the contract. The court exercised its discretion appropriately in referring issues of damages and profit to arbitration, as application proceedings are u…
Source excerpt
Member of the Executive Council Department of Public Transport, Road and Works v L M T Progressive Development CC and Another (38124-2010; 38127-2010) [2017] ZAGPJHC 319 (27 October 2017)
The court found that the contracts were concluded in breach of the constitutional and statutory requirements for public procurement. The Department failed to follow a competitive bidding process for contracts exceeding the prescribed threshold, and the purported deviation was not justified by an objectively established emergency or sole supplier situation. The reasons advanced by the accounting officer did not meet the rationality test, as the facts did not support the existence of an emergency or the necessity for single source procurement. The court further held that the delay in bringing t…
Source excerpt
Explore more
