South Africa Case Law

Maano Water (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (383/24)

Maano Water (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (383/24) [2025] ZASCA 87 (12 June 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

383/24

Judges

Matojane, Keightley, Phatshoane

The Court held that Eskom's decision to cancel the tender was an executive action, not administrative action, and thus not reviewable under PAJA but under the principle of legality. The tender documents expressly reserved Eskom's right to cancel the tender at any time prior to contract formation. Maano did not have an enforceable right to compel Eskom to continue negotiations until deadlock, as the relevant contractual clause was too vague and lacked a deadlock-breaking mechanism. The cancellation was rationally connected to Eskom's need to protect public funds in light of significant and unf…

Source excerpt

• Tender Cancellation
• Executive Action Vs Administrative Action
• Rationality Review
• Pactum De Contrahendo
• Preferential Procurement Regulations

Mpuzi Business Enterprise CC v Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd and Others (19716/2024)

Mpuzi Business Enterprise CC v Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd and Others (19716/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 79 (5 March 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19716/2024

Judge

Slingers

The court found that the award of 200 points to bidder 44 was procedurally irregular and not transparent, as the process for locating missing mandatory documents was not explained or shown to be uniformly applied. This contravened section 217(1) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the court held that the phrase 'in all respects' in the deadlock breaking mechanism must be interpreted to include functionality, price, and specific goals, as this aligns with the plain language of the tender documents, the applicable regulations, and the constitutional objectives of fair and competitive procurement.…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Tender Award Review
• Procedural Fairness
• Preferential Procurement Regulations
• Interpretation Of Tender Documents

Amadwala Trading 73 CC v Ethekwini Municipality (AR317/2022)

Amadwala Trading 73 CC v Ethekwini Municipality (AR317/2022) [2024] ZAKZPHC 93 (28 March 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR317/2022

Judges

Mathenjwa, Olsen, Mpontshana

The court found that the tender was never formally awarded to the appellant, as the respondent's practice was to inform unsuccessful bidders first and only appoint the successful bidder after internal appeals were finalised. The respondent's SCM policy and Preferential Procurement Regulations permitted cancellation of the tender due to changed circumstances, specifically the decision to insource waste management services in response to service disruptions. The cancellation was lawful and rationally connected to the respondent's constitutional obligations to provide sustainable services. The d…

Source excerpt

• Tender Cancellation
• Preferential Procurement Regulations
• Municipal Supply Chain Management
• Procedural Fairness
• Principle Of Legality

Kufanikiwa Consulting (Pty) Ltd and Others v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Transport, KwaZulu-Natal Province and Another (15659/2023P)

Kufanikiwa Consulting (Pty) Ltd and Others v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Transport, KwaZulu-Natal Province and Another (15659/2023P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 24 (22 March 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

15659/2023P

Judge

Pitman AJ

The High Court held that cancelling a late-stage tender was administrative action reviewable under PAJA and, applying stare decisis, ordered the Department to implement the bid awards.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Tender Cancellation
• Stare Decisis
• Preferential Procurement Regulations
• Substitution Order
• Administrative-law

Telegenix Trading 799 (Pty) Limited v Zimele Investment Enterprise Company (Pty) Ltd and Others (A277/2022)

Telegenix Trading 799 (Pty) Limited v Zimele Investment Enterprise Company (Pty) Ltd and Others (A277/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1128 (5 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A277/2022

Judges

R G Tolmay, R Francis-Subbiah, L Barit

High Court appeal over SANRAL tender disqualifications for failure to submit a valid B-BBEE certificate. The appeal succeeded, the cross-appeal failed, and Zimele’s review was dismissed.

• Public Procurement
• Preferential Procurement Regulations
• B Bbee Compliance
• Judicial Review
• Acceptable Tender
• Pre Qualification Criteria

Ma-Afrika Hotels (Pty) Ltd v Cape Peninsula University of Technology (Application for leave to appeal) (20599/21;4517/22)

Ma-Afrika Hotels (Pty) Ltd v Cape Peninsula University of Technology (Application for leave to appeal) (20599/21;4517/22) [2023] ZAWCHC 46 (6 March 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20599/21;4517/22

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court found that the respondent, as an organ of state, is subject to administrative action only when exercising powers under the Constitution or legislation, not under its own procurement policy. The applicant's argument that the procurement policy constituted an empowering provision was rejected, as PAJA distinguishes between organs of state and other persons. The respondent's right to cancel the tender was reserved in the Request for Proposal, and the applicant did not challenge the legality of the RFP or its terms. The court held that there was a rational basis for the respondent's dec…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Preferential Procurement Regulations
• Judicial Review
• Leave To Appeal

Ma-Afrika Hotels (Pty) Ltd v Cape Peninsula University of Technology (20599/21; 4517/22)

Ma-Afrika Hotels (Pty) Ltd v Cape Peninsula University of Technology (20599/21; 4517/22) [2023] ZAWCHC 4; [2023] 1 All SA 731 (WCC); 2023 (3) SA 621 (WCC) (19 January 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20599/21; 4517/22

Judge

A.G. Binns-Ward

The court held that the respondent's decision to cancel the tender process after rescinding the award to Baobab was administrative action within the meaning of PAJA, as it was closely connected to the respondent's public function of providing student accommodation as part of its constitutional and statutory mandate. However, the applicant failed to establish grounds for review under PAJA. The PPPFA and its regulations did not apply to the respondent, as it was not an organ of state for purposes of section 217 of the Constitution or the PPPFA. The applicant did not request or obtain reasons fo…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Tender Review
• Preferential Procurement Regulations
• Irrationality Review
• University Procurement
• Failure To Award Tender

Roadmac Surfacing (Pty) Ltd v MEC For The Department of Police, Roads and Transport, Free State Province and Another (171/2022)

Roadmac Surfacing (Pty) Ltd v MEC For The Department of Police, Roads and Transport, Free State Province and Another (171/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 318 (14 November 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

171/2022

Judges

POHL, AJ, MOLITSOANE, J

The court found that the applicant failed to submit a complete and compliant bid, as required by the tender documentation and the Preferential Procurement Regulations. The tender documents clearly stipulated the need to specify the 30% subcontracting value and to complete all required information. The applicant's omission to provide the subcontracting value and its indication of 'not applicable' rendered its bid non-responsive. The court applied the Plascon-Evans rule to resolve factual disputes and concluded that the first respondent's decision to disqualify the applicant and award the tende…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Preferential Procurement Regulations
• Bid Responsiveness
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Takubiza Trading & Projects CC and Others (846/2021)

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Takubiza Trading & Projects CC and Others (846/2021) [2022] ZASCA 82; 2023 (1) SA 44 (SCA) (3 June 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

846/2021

Judges

Ponnan, Mabindla-Boqwana, Meyer, Matojane, Phatshoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Municipality's attempt to extend the tender validity period by sending notifications on the last day did not result in a valid extension, as not all bidders responded timeously. The process was completed unsuccessfully upon expiry of the validity period, and any subsequent award was invalid. The principle established in Telkom SA and Searle applies: once the validity period lapses, the tender process ends and cannot be revived by late confirmations. The Municipality's actions did not comply with the requirements of transparency, equity, and competitiv…

Source excerpt

• Tender Validity Period
• Public Procurement
• Administrative Action
• Setting Aside Tender Award
• Preferential Procurement Regulations

Reelin Investments (Pty) Ltd v Transnet SOC Limited and Others (7438/2022)

Reelin Investments (Pty) Ltd v Transnet SOC Limited and Others (7438/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 215 (5 April 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

7438/2022

Judge

R M Keightley

The High Court struck Reelin’s urgent interdict application from the roll, finding it had delayed too long in challenging Transnet’s tender award to Miner Enterprises.

• Interim Interdict
• Judicial Review Of Tender Award
• Urgency In Interdict Applications
• Preferential Procurement Regulations
• Local Content Requirements
• Delay In Review Applications