South Africa Case Law

Quality Plant Hire CC / Expectra 388 CC Joint Venture and Others v MEC for the Department: Transport & Public Works, Western Cape Government and Others (20263/2021)

Quality Plant Hire CC / Expectra 388 CC Joint Venture and Others v MEC for the Department: Transport & Public Works, Western Cape Government and Others (20263/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 156 (20 June 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20263/2021

Judge

Henney

The court held that the Department's requirement for an authenticated Joint Venture Agreement was clear, material, and mandatory. Authentication in the legal context refers to verification by a notary public or commissioner of oaths, not merely the submission of an original document. The applicants failed to comply with this requirement, and their bid was correctly deemed non-responsive. The court found no merit in the argument that only copies required authentication or that the tender conditions were unclear. The Department's decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair under PAJA.…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Tender Disqualification
• Interpretation Of Tender Conditions
• Authentication Of Documents

LDM Consulting v South African National Roads Agency Society Ltd (SANRAL) (1490/17)

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.

• Public Procurement
• Interpretation Of Tender Conditions
• Interim Interdict
• Fairness In Tender Process
• Public-procurement
• Tender-conditions

Stiegelmeyer Africa (Pty) Ltd v National Treasury of South Africa and Others (2275/2014)

Stiegelmeyer Africa (Pty) Ltd v National Treasury of South Africa and Others (2275/2014) [2015] ZAWCHC 9; [2015] 2 All SA 110 (WCC) (9 February 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2275/2014

Judge

Bozalek

The court held that clause 16.4 of the SCC required prior notification to bidders if items were to be grouped and evaluated as a series. Since the tender specifications did not indicate that the disputed items (bed, mattress, mattress cover) would be grouped, the BAC was not empowered to evaluate them as a group. The BAC's failure to follow the BEC recommendation to group the items, although inadvertent, avoided an unlawful award. The BAC's individual evaluation of the bed item was lawful, and Stiegelmeyer conceded that Hospi-Furn scored higher for that item. There was no basis for remitting…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Tender Irregularity
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Interpretation Of Tender Conditions
• Ultra Vires
• Costs Order