South Africa Case Law

Silver Lake Trading 305 (Pty) Ltd t/a Opulentia Financial Services v Bloemwater (now Vaal Central Water) and Another (4689/2023)

Silver Lake Trading 305 (Pty) Ltd t/a Opulentia Financial Services v Bloemwater (now Vaal Central Water) and Another (4689/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 79 (20 March 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4689/2023

Judges

P E Molitsoane, S Naidoo

The first respondent impermissibly recalculated the second respondent's bid and allowed it to accept a reduced amount without authority reserved in the tender data. There was no arithmetical error justifying such correction, and the process unfairly advantaged the second respondent. The tender process was not conducted in accordance with the principles of fairness and transparency required by the Constitution and PAJA. The applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances for substitution; remittal is the appropriate remedy to ensure fairness and allow the first respondent to reconsider…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Tender Irregularity
• Preferential Procurement
• Remittal Of Administrative Decision

Save The Maize Belt Society v Member of the Executive Council of the Mpumalanga Provincial Government responsible for Agriculture, Rural Development, Land, and Environmental Affairs and Others (1029/2019)

Save The Maize Belt Society v Member of the Executive Council of the Mpumalanga Provincial Government responsible for Agriculture, Rural Development, Land, and Environmental Affairs and Others (1029/2019) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 16 (11 May 2021)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1029/2019

Judge

Legodi JP

The court found that the MEC's decision to dismiss the Society's internal appeal on procedural grounds was unlawful and invalid, as the MEC failed to consider the merits of the appeal. The non-joinder point raised by the state respondents was rejected because the Society had correctly cited the MEC in its founding affidavit. The argument that the environmental authorisation had lapsed was dismissed based on the transitional provisions of NEMA, which preserved the suspension effect of appeals lodged before the 2014 amendment. The court held that it was not appropriate for the judiciary to subs…

Source excerpt

• Environmental Authorisation
• Internal Appeal Procedure
• Climate Change Impact Assessment
• Judicial Review
• Non Joinder
• Remittal Of Administrative Decision

Council for Geoscience v New Resolution Geophysics and Another (61912/2018)

Council for Geoscience v New Resolution Geophysics and Another (61912/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 266 (29 May 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

61912/2018

Judge

E.M. Kubushi

Review application over a tender award set aside after the court found a material VAT-rate error in bid evaluation under the legality principle.

• Public Procurement
• Principle Of Legality
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Material Irregularity
• Remittal Of Administrative Decision
• Public-procurement

Contour Technology (Pty) Limited v Chairperson of the Bid Adjudication Committee: Modimole Local Municipality and Others (92959/2015)

Contour Technology (Pty) Limited v Chairperson of the Bid Adjudication Committee: Modimole Local Municipality and Others (92959/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 496 (11 August 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

92959/2015

Judge

Tuchten

The Municipality failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act by not properly scoring the tenders for price and instead relying on functionality and subjective references. This constituted an unlawful exercise of public power and invalidated the award of the tender to Cigicell. The court found that it was not in as good a position as the Municipality to determine the correct award due to unresolved factual disputes regarding the price structure. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the Municipality for proper re-evaluation in accorda…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Tender Review
• Remittal Of Administrative Decision
• Substitution Of Decision
• Costs Award

Westinghouse Electric Belgium Societe Anonyme v Eskom Holdings (Soc) Ltd and Another (476/2015)

Westinghouse Electric Belgium Societe Anonyme v Eskom Holdings (Soc) Ltd and Another (476/2015) [2015] ZASCA 208; [2016] 1 All SA 483 (SCA); 2016 (3) SA 1 (SCA) (9 December 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

476/2015

Judges

Lewis, Ponnan, Theron, Petse, Mathopo

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Bid Tender Committee unlawfully took into account strategic considerations and a schedule float that were not part of the published tender criteria when awarding the tender to Areva. These factors were neither disclosed to the bidders nor included in the evaluation framework, rendering the process procedurally unfair and irrational under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. The court held that strict compliance with the tender criteria is required to ensure fairness, transparency, and competitiveness in public procurement. The inclusion of ex…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Procurement
• Tender Review
• Irrelevant Considerations
• Procedural Fairness
• Remittal Of Administrative Decision

Atholl Developments (pty) Ltd v Valuation Appeal Board for the City of Johannesburg and Another (209/2014)

Atholl Developments (pty) Ltd v Valuation Appeal Board for the City of Johannesburg and Another (209/2014) [2015] ZASCA 55 (30 March 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

209/2014

Judges

Ponnan, Willis, Saldulker, Van Der Merwe, Meyer

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an appeal lies against the substantive order, not the reasons for judgment, and struck the matter off the roll with costs.

• Appealability
• Substantive Order Vs Reasons
• Remittal Of Administrative Decision
• Civil-procedure
• Administrative-law
• Municipal-property-rates

Trustees of the Simcha Trust (IT 1342/93) v De Jong and Others (20001/2014)

Trustees of the Simcha Trust (IT 1342/93) v De Jong and Others (20001/2014) [2015] ZASCA 45; 2015 (4) SA 229 (SCA); [2015] 3 All SA 161 (SCA) (26 March 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20001/2014

Judges

Navsa, Brand, Mhlantla, Zondi, Schoeman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that compensation under s 8(1)(c)(ii)(bb) of PAJA is not available where the administrative action has been set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration. The court confirmed that the remedies in s 8(1)(c)(i) and (ii) are mutually exclusive, and compensation is only available in exceptional cases where remittal or substitution is not feasible. The phrase 'exceptional cases' refers to the appropriateness of the remedy, not the quality of the administrative decision. The appellant's claim for compensation failed because the setting aside of the City's ap…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Building Plan Approval
• Compensation For Administrative Action
• Remittal Of Administrative Decision
• Exceptional Cases Remedy