South Africa Case Law

Pooling and Sharing Joint Venture, A Joint Venture Established between Richtersveld Mining Company (Pty) Ltd and Alexkor Limited v Alexander Bay Diamond Company (Pty) Ltd (Previously Known as Scarlet Sky Investment 60 (Pty) Ltd (2129/2020)

Pooling and Sharing Joint Venture, A Joint Venture Established between Richtersveld Mining Company (Pty) Ltd and Alexkor Limited v Alexander Bay Diamond Company (Pty) Ltd (Previously Known as Scarlet Sky Investment 60 (Pty) Ltd (2129/2020) [2025] ZANCHC 42 (23 May 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2129/2020

Judge

MC Mamosebo

High Court decision granting leave to amend pleadings in a contract dispute, rejecting objections that the amendment application was procedurally defective or excipiable.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Excipiability
• Illegal Contract
• State Procurement
• Diamonds Act Compliance
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act

National Commissioner Of The South African Police Services and Another v Forensic Data Analysts (Pty) Ltd and Another (24570/2018)

National Commissioner Of The South African Police Services and Another v Forensic Data Analysts (Pty) Ltd and Another (24570/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 6; 2019 BIP 215 (GP) (30 January 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24570/2018

Judge

Swanepoel AJ

The court found that FDA is the author and copyright holder of the FPS system, as there was no evidence that SAPS exercised the requisite direction or control over the creation of the software to vest copyright in the State under section 5(2) of the Copyright Act. The Waymark agreement did not confer a perpetual licence on SAPS, and the 2016 SITA/FDA agreement only entitled SAPS and SITA to use the FPS system while the licence was valid. Upon expiry, SAPS and SITA were obliged to cease use and return all copies of the software to FDA. The continued use of the FPS system by SAPS and SITA witho…

Source excerpt

• Software Copyright
• Licensing Agreements
• Final Interdict
• Contractual Obligations
• State Procurement
• Copyright Act Section 5

Viva Engineering Project CC and Another v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (64340/13)

Viva Engineering Project CC and Another v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (64340/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 254 (17 March 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64340/13

Judge

A B Rossouw

The High Court dismissed a PAJA review of a tender disqualification, holding that Viva lacked locus standi as a joint venture bidder and that the SBD9-based disqualification was valid.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• State Procurement
• Bid Disqualification
• Collusive Tendering
• Locus Standi
• Administrative-law

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited v Trencon Construction (Pty) Limited and Another (642/2013)

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited v Trencon Construction (Pty) Limited and Another (642/2013) [2014] ZASCA 163; [2014] 4 All SA 561 (SCA) (1 October 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

642/2013

Judges

Lewis, Maya, Tshiqi, Schoeman, Fourie

The SCA set aside a substitution order in a tender review, holding that IDC’s decision was reviewable but the matter should have been remitted for reconsideration.

• Tender Review
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Substitution Remedy
• State Procurement
• Error Of Law
• Tender-review

S v Tshopo and Others (29/12)

S v Tshopo and Others (29/12) [2012] ZASCA 193 (30 November 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

29/12

Judges

Heher, Leach, Theron

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld fraud convictions over a tender declaration that failed to disclose a connected provincial employee, but reduced the first appellant’s sentence.

• Fraud
• Tender Irregularities
• Misrepresentation
• Sentence Appeal
• State Procurement
• State-procurement