Datacentrix (Pty) Ltd v South African National Parks and Others (041563/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 325 (11 April 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
041563/2024
Judge
M.P. Motha
High Court review of SANParks’ ICT tender award upheld Datacentrix’s challenge, finding Gijima did not meet mandatory financial-statement requirements.
Ngaraga Properties v Member of the Executive Council Responsible for Education, Limpopo Province and Others (6752/2021) [2023] ZALMPPHC 26 (25 May 2023)
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Case number
6752/2021
Judge
M V Semenya
The court found that the Department of Education failed to comply with mandatory and material requirements in the tender process, including the submission of audited financial statements, valid track record letters, and SABS certification by the third respondent. The Department's disqualification of the applicant for not owning the manufacturing plant was inconsistent, as the third respondent also did not own the plant. The reliance on documents from other entities by the third respondent was impermissible, and the Department's argument that these requirements were immaterial was rejected. Th…
DS Consortium v The MEC Free State Provincial Department of Sports, Arts, Culture and Recreation and Another (Reasons) (4568/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 252 (3 October 2022)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
4568/2022
Judge
P.J. Loubser
The High Court held that a Macufe Festival tender was invalid because the department changed venue requirements without informing bidders, contrary to section 217.
Hemipac Investments (Pty) Ltd v Buffalo City Municipality and Others (1525/17) [2019] ZAECELLC 13 (2 May 2019)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Case number
1525/17
Judge
B R Tokota
The court found that the first respondent failed to act fairly and transparently in the tender process. The applicant was disqualified without being afforded an opportunity to clarify its bid, while the second respondent was given such an opportunity, albeit informally. The tender specifications were ambiguous, and the requirement of 'approximately 850m2' was not consistently applied. The first respondent did not provide adequate reasons for its decision and failed to comply with its constitutional and statutory obligations under PAJA and section 217 of the Constitution. The decision to disqu…
LDM Consulting v South African National Roads Agency Society Ltd (SANRAL) (1490/17) [2017] ZAKZPHC 8 (7 March 2017)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Case number
1490/17
Judge
D Pillay
The High Court dismissed an urgent bid to stop SANRAL awarding a tender, holding that the tender condition on key persons was clear and not unreasonable.
B Braun Medical (Pty) Ltd v Director General: National Treasury and Others (73363/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1114 (3 November 2016)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
73363/2015
Judge
Thobane
The court found that the tender specifications expressly required IV catheters to have US, FDA approval for use on humans. The second and third respondents did not provide US, FDA certification, but only CE certification, which did not meet the specific requirement. The deviation from the bid specifications was material, as it disadvantaged other tenderers, particularly the applicant, and resulted in an unfair evaluation process. The awarding of the tender to the second and third respondents was therefore invalid and had to be set aside. The court emphasized that fairness, transparency, and e…
VDZ Construction (Pty) Ltd v Makana Municipality and Others (1834/ 2011) [2011] ZAECGHC 64 (3 November 2011)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Case number
1834/ 2011
Judge
DZ Dukada
The court found that the applicant's failure to submit an original of page 2 of the Municipal Billing Clearance Certificate was an inadvertent error in form, not substance. There was no evidence of fraud or malpractice. The first and second respondents failed to consider whether the error could be condoned without undermining the principles of fairness, transparency, competitiveness, and cost-effectiveness. The court held that the tender process was inconsistent with the requirements of PAJA and Section 217 of the Constitution, as relevant considerations were ignored and the process placed un…
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…
Respiratory Care Africa (Pty) Limited v MEC for Health. Eastern Cape Province and Others (1977/2008) [2009] ZAECHC 21 (5 February 2009)
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Case number
1977/2008
Judge
Froneman
The court found that the rule requiring certificates to be attached to each bid was clearly communicated both in the bid documents and at the pre-bid meeting. The applicant failed to comply with this requirement in respect of its unsuccessful bids, and there was no evidence of arbitrary or inconsistent application of the rule. The respondent's version of events was accepted, as is standard in motion proceedings where no referral to oral evidence is sought. The court held that the procurement process was fair, equitable, and transparent, and that the applicant's disqualification was justified.…
