South Africa Case Law

Davis and Deale Irrigation (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan and Others (2023-071369)

Davis and Deale Irrigation (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan and Others (2023-071369) [2025] ZAGPJHC 475 (19 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-071369

Judge

N S Krüger

The High Court dismissed an interim interdict against a municipal water-meter contract award, finding no proven fraud, no imminent irreparable harm, and an adequate damages remedy.

• Public Procurement
• Interim Interdict
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Fraud In Tender Process
• Delictual Damages
• Balance Of Convenience

BCB Cable Jointing CC v Ampcor Khanyisa (Pty) Ltd and Others (4709/2021)

BCB Cable Jointing CC v Ampcor Khanyisa (Pty) Ltd and Others (4709/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 89; [2023] 3 All SA 81 (WCC) (5 May 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4709/2021

Judge

J Cloete

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the eight-month delay in instituting review proceedings, with significant periods unexplained and the remainder inadequately justified. The applicant’s reliance on alleged fraud was unsupported by admissible evidence and did not obviate the need for condonation. The City’s supply chain management policy was valid at the time of the tender award, as the invalidity of the 2017 regulations did not retrospectively affect the policy. The tender process, including pricing evaluation and committee constitution…

Source excerpt

• Tender Review
• Delay Institution Of Proceedings
• Preferential Procurement
• Condonation
• Fraud In Tender Process
• Quorum Requirements

Minister of Finance and Others v Gore NO (230/06)

Minister of Finance and Others v Gore NO (230/06) [2006] ZASCA 98; [2007] 1 All SA 309 (SCA); 2007 (1) SA 111 (SCA) (8 September 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

230/06

Judges

Cameron JA, Mthiyane JA, Brand JA, Mlambo JA, Malan AJA

The court held that the tender-fraud claim had not prescribed, found the state vicariously liable for employees’ fraud, and upheld causation and wrongfulness.

• Prescription Act
• Vicarious Liability
• Fraud In Tender Process
• Causation
• Wrongfulness
• Public Tender Liability