South Africa Case Law

Ngaraga Properties v Member of the Executive Council Responsible for Education, Limpopo Province and Others (6752/2021)

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…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Government Procurement
• Bid Evaluation
• Mandatory Requirements
• Fairness In Tender Process

Lethabulumko Group (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Department of Education (28952/2020)

Lethabulumko Group (Pty) Ltd v Gauteng Department of Education (28952/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 415 (3 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

28952/2020

Judge

ML Senyatsi

The court held that the applicant's failure to submit a certified copy of the Certificate of Acceptance (COA) as required by the tender's mandatory requirements constituted valid grounds for disqualification. The subsequent inspection of the original COA by respondent officials did not cure the procedural defect, as the tender process required strict compliance to ensure fairness among all bidders. The respondent was entitled to enforce the clear terms of the tender documents, and the administrative decision to disqualify the applicant's bid was regular and lawful under PAJA. There was no bas…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Tender Procedural Compliance
• Bid Disqualification
• Mandatory Requirements

Defensor Electronic Security (Pty) Ltd v Centlec SOC Ltd and Another (3372/2021)

Defensor Electronic Security (Pty) Ltd v Centlec SOC Ltd and Another (3372/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 315 (3 December 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3372/2021

Judges

JP Daffue, JJ Mhlambi

The court found that the first respondent awarded the tender after the expiry of the validity period without proper extension or consent from all bidders, rendering the process invalid. The point scoring was irregular, as the evaluation did not consider the total contract period, and the absence of Annexure E prevented verification of the scoring process. The second respondent failed to submit a mandatory pricing schedule, which should have led to its disqualification. The CEO of the first respondent acted outside his authority by exercising discretion not provided for in law. The cumulative…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Tender Validity Period
• Irregular Point Scoring
• Mandatory Requirements
• Judicial Review

Exilaclox (Pty) Ltd v MEC for the Provincial Department of Roads and Public Works Northern Cape Province and Others, Ocean Echo Properties 333 CC v MEC Northern Cape Provincial Government: Department of Roads and Public Works and Another (2802/2016, 2804/2016)

Exilaclox (Pty) Ltd v MEC for the Provincial Department of Roads and Public Works Northern Cape Province and Others, Ocean Echo Properties 333 CC v MEC Northern Cape Provincial Government: Department of Roads and Public Works and Another (2802/2016, 2804/2016) [2017] ZANCHC 65 (21 July 2017)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2802/2016, 2804/2016

Judges

Mamosebo J, Lever AJ

The court found that the Department unlawfully awarded the tender to Alkara 79 CC, which failed to comply with mandatory requirements, specifically the late submission of the NCP 4 declaration and the lack of an existing building as required. The Department's reasons for disqualifying Exilaclox and Ocean Echo were inconsistent, irrational, and not based on the mandatory requirements set out in the tender. Ocean Echo's bid was unresponsive due to failure to provide proof of ownership or a valid proxy agreement. Exilaclox's bid was the only responsive tender. Exceptional circumstances existed,…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Tender Review
• Substitution Order
• Mandatory Requirements
• Unlawful Administrative Action

Equicent Eastern Cape Developments (Pty) Ltd v University of Fort Hare and Others (3562/2014)

Equicent Eastern Cape Developments (Pty) Ltd v University of Fort Hare and Others (3562/2014) [2014] ZAECGHC 94 (28 October 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

3562/2014

Judge

Plasket

The court dismissed an urgent application for an interim interdict stopping a university tender project, finding a prima facie right but that convenience favoured the respondents.

• Public Procurement
• Interim Interdict
• Mandatory Requirements
• Procedural Fairness
• Balance Of Convenience
• Public-procurement

Xantium Trading 42 (Pty) Ltd v South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator and Another (03835/2010)

Xantium Trading 42 (Pty) Ltd v South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator and Another (03835/2010) [2012] ZAGPJHC 263 (28 December 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

03835/2010

Judge

Spilg

The court granted an urgent interdict in a procurement dispute, finding a strong prima facie case that mandatory firearm-licence requirements were ignored.

• Public Procurement
• Judicial Review
• Mandatory Requirements
• Preferential Procurement Policy
• Interim Interdict
• Functus Officio