South Africa Case Law

Sithathu Funding (Pty) Ltd v Road Accident Fund and Others (1241/2022)

Sithathu Funding (Pty) Ltd v Road Accident Fund and Others (1241/2022) [2025] ZAECMKHC 36 (15 April 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

1241/2022

Judge

Zono

The court found that the applicant's bid failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the tender, specifically regarding the lift size, parking arrangements, and mandate from the property owner. The tender documents expressly stated that failure to comply with all mandatory requirements would result in disqualification. The applicant's lifts did not meet the required dimensions, the parking offered was not available for use by the RAF, and the applicant lacked proper mandate from the property owner. These were material deviations. The court held that only bids compliant with all mandat…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Mandatory Tender Requirements
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Acceptable Tender Definition
• Judicial Review

Datacentrix (Pty) Ltd v South African National Parks and Others (041563/2024)

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.

• Public Procurement
• Mandatory Tender Requirements
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Fairness In Tender Process
• Bid Disqualification
• Interpretation Of Tender Documents

Fumani Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Finance and Others (121053/2023)

Fumani Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Finance and Others (121053/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1067 (4 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

121053/2023

Judge

Holland-Muter

High Court review of a tender disqualification dismissed after the bidder failed to meet mandatory authorisation requirements in the procurement documents.

• Public Procurement
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Mandatory Tender Requirements
• Judicial Review
• Authorisation Declaration
• Public-procurement

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited v Babcock Ntuthuko Engineering (137/2023, 156/2023 and 148/2023)

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited v Babcock Ntuthuko Engineering (137/2023, 156/2023 and 148/2023) [2024] ZASCA 63 (29 April 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

137/2023, 156/2023 and 148/2023

Judges

Mbatha, Mabindla-Boqwana, Weiner, Smith, Mbhele

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the RFP unambiguously required submission of a valid ISO 3834 certificate as a mandatory returnable, and this was clarified at the tender clarification meeting attended by all bidders, including Babcock. Babcock's failure to submit the certificate by the deadline constituted material non-compliance with a peremptory requirement, and Eskom had no discretion to condone such non-compliance. The court distinguished this case from precedents where non-compliance was trivial or minor, finding that the ISO certificate was essential to ensure bidders' qualificati…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Mandatory Tender Requirements
• Substantial Compliance
• Tender Disqualification
• Splitting Of Tenders

Spec Joint Venture v Minister: Department of Water and Sanitation and Others (2806/2022)

Spec Joint Venture v Minister: Department of Water and Sanitation and Others (2806/2022) [2023] ZAECQBHC 8 (17 February 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

2806/2022

Judge

Bands

The High Court reviewed and set aside a tender award after finding the department unlawfully relaxed mandatory UIF compliance requirements without authority.

• Public Procurement
• Mandatory Tender Requirements
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Public-procurement

Topfix (PTY) LTD v Eskom Holdings SOC LTD and Others (5765/2022)

Topfix (PTY) LTD v Eskom Holdings SOC LTD and Others (5765/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 33 (17 January 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

5765/2022

Judge

M Munzhelele

The High Court dismissed Topfix’s review of Eskom’s tender award, finding that failure to submit the mandatory CSD MAA number justified disqualification.

• Public Procurement
• Mandatory Tender Requirements
• Procedural Fairness
• Judicial Review
• Acceptable Tender Definition
• Public-procurement

Autozone Retail and Distribution (Pty) Ltd v National Commissioner of Police N.O. and Others (52240/14)

Autozone Retail and Distribution (Pty) Ltd v National Commissioner of Police N.O. and Others (52240/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 735 (25 September 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

52240/14

Judge

Wepener

The court found that the tender process conducted by SAPS was riddled with material irregularities. These included the absence of volume information for pricing, inconsistent application of multiplication factors, failure to exclude buy-out prices, amendment of prices after the closing date, non-compliance with mandatory requirements regarding outlets and distribution networks, and the lack of tax certificates for subcontractors. The successful bidders, ABE Midas and Pinnacle, did not meet the mandatory requirements at the time of award, and their bids involved misrepresentations and unsubsta…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Bid Evaluation Irregularities
• Mandatory Tender Requirements
• Judicial Review