South Africa Case Law

Urban Icon (Pty) Ltd v South African National Roads Agency SOC Ltd and Others (28814/2020)

Urban Icon (Pty) Ltd v South African National Roads Agency SOC Ltd and Others (28814/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1988 (11 December 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

28814/2020

Judge

R G Tolmay

The court found that SANRAL was entitled to conduct a holistic due diligence and risk evaluation beyond the functionality and price scoring, as permitted by the PPPFA and the tender documents. The objective criteria, including unacceptable commercial risk and capacity to deliver on multiple concurrent projects, were properly stipulated and justified awarding the tenders to other bidders. Urban Icon was given ample opportunity to address concerns and no procedural unfairness or bias was established. The monitoring decision did not constitute administrative action subject to review. Furthermore…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Objective Criteria In Tender Awards
• Due Diligence In Tender Process
• Unacceptable Commercial Risk
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action

Minister: National Department of Public Works & Infrastructure v HBC Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others - Appeal (CA213/2021)

Minister: National Department of Public Works & Infrastructure v HBC Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others - Appeal (CA213/2021) [2023] ZAECMKHC 109 (3 August 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA213/2021

Judges

Hartle, Majiki, Bands

The court held that the Bid Evaluation Committee's decisions to declare the second and third respondents' bids administratively responsive were unlawful, as both failed to comply with mandatory requirements stipulated in the tender documents. The Department's differential treatment of non-compliance was unjustified and inconsistent with the principles of fairness and transparency in public procurement. The risk assessment process, while permissible as objective criteria if properly stipulated, was not determinative in this instance because only the first respondent remained as a responsive bi…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Judicial Review Under Paja
• Bid Responsiveness
• Objective Criteria In Tender Awards
• Condonation Of Noncompliance

Makhathini Medical Waste (Pty) Ltd and Another v MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal and Others (8721/21P)

Makhathini Medical Waste (Pty) Ltd and Another v MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal and Others (8721/21P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 151 (3 August 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

8721/21P

Judge

Poyo Dlwati JP

High Court review of a KwaZulu-Natal health-care waste tender failed, with the court finding objective criteria, valid bid extensions, and a late Buhle review.

• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Objective Criteria In Tender Awards
• Bid Validity Period
• Judicial Review Delay
• Intervention Application
• Administrative-law

FMP Contractors (Pty) Ltd v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Others (A46/2019)

FMP Contractors (Pty) Ltd v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Others (A46/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 149 (29 August 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A46/2019

Judges

Chesiwe, Meintjes

High Court review of municipal panel-contractor allocations dismissed. The court found the rotational procurement process lawful, fair, and not vitiated by irregularity.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Procurement
• Objective Criteria In Tender Awards
• Non Joinder
• Rotational Allocation
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act

Jorian Construction CC v Letsemeng Local Municipality and Others (1954/2017)

Jorian Construction CC v Letsemeng Local Municipality and Others (1954/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 216 (24 August 2017)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1954/2017

Judges

Rampai, Snellenburg

The court found that the exclusion of the applicant's bid from further evaluation was irregular and reviewable under PAJA, as the bid was responsive and should have advanced to the next round. The first respondent was bound to the reasons initially supplied and could not supplement them ex post facto. The application of a predetermined price deviation as a risk analysis was held to be an objective criterion permissible under the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, provided it is applied fairly and does not result in arbitrary exclusion. Past performance, in the circumstances, was n…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Objective Criteria In Tender Awards
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action
• Costs Order