South Africa Case Law

Chapman Fund Manager (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works and Another (25558/2021)

Chapman Fund Manager (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works and Another (25558/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 273 (26 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

25558/2021

Judge

C J van der Westhuizen

The court found that the extension of the contract was lawfully effected in accordance with the terms of the original agreement, which expressly provided for such an extension at the discretion of the first defendant and subject to mutual agreement. The evidence established that the extension was properly considered, approved by the Bid Committee, and accepted in writing by both parties. The defendants failed to present credible evidence of any breach of section 217(1) of the Constitution or any irregularity in the extension process. The court accepted the plaintiff's reliance on the 3P Consu…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Contract Extension
• Section 217 Constitution
• Tender Award
• Onus Of Proof
• Practice Note 8 Pfma

Famous Idea Trading 4 (Pty) Ltd t/a Dely Road Courier Pharmacy v Government Employees Medical Scheme and Others (B1205/2023)

Famous Idea Trading 4 (Pty) Ltd t/a Dely Road Courier Pharmacy v Government Employees Medical Scheme and Others (B1205/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 69 (5 February 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

B1205/2023

Judge

Ranchod

The court held that the decision by GEMS to award the tender for medical courier pharmacy services was a commercial decision by a private entity and did not constitute administrative action or the exercise of public power. The relationship between GEMS and its members is contractual, and its procurement decisions are not subject to judicial review under Rule 53 or common law. The court found that Rule 6(5)(d)(iii) may be invoked to raise a dispositive point of law in a Rule 53 review. As the impugned decision is not reviewable, GEMS is not obliged to deliver the record of decision. The review…

Source excerpt

• Rule 53 Review
• Private Procurement
• Jurisdiction
• Common Law Review
• Administrative Action
• Tender Award

Lichenry (Pty) Limited v MEC: Department of Public Works and Roads: North West Provincial Government and Another (UM 134/2023)

Lichenry (Pty) Limited v MEC: Department of Public Works and Roads: North West Provincial Government and Another (UM 134/2023) [2023] ZANWHC 207 (16 November 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM 134/2023

Judge

Mfenyana

Reconsideration under Rule 6(12)(c) of an urgent tender review was refused, with the court upholding the original substitution-based order.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Review
• Substitution Of Administrative Decision
• Tender Award
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Urgent-applications

Mediterranean Shipping Company (Pty) Ltd v Transnet Freight Rail, an Operating Division of Transnet SOC Ltd and Others (7179/2022)

Mediterranean Shipping Company (Pty) Ltd v Transnet Freight Rail, an Operating Division of Transnet SOC Ltd and Others (7179/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 960 (5 December 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

7179/2022

Judge

SM Maritz

The High Court dismissed an urgent bid to halt implementation of a tender award pending internal review, finding that a binding contract already existed.

• Interim Interdict
• Tender Award
• Internal Remedy
• Contract Conclusion
• Judicial Review
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Inathi-Mbako v Manguang Metro Municipality (4253/2022)

Inathi-Mbako v Manguang Metro Municipality (4253/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 305 (7 November 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4253/2022

Judge

L. Mpama

The High Court refused provisional sentence on a payment certificate, finding the municipality had raised a valid defence going behind the liquid document.

• Provisional Sentence
• Liquid Document
• Authority Of Agent
• Interdict
• Tender Award
• Provisional-sentence

Colvic Marketing & Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure and Others (21819/2020)

Colvic Marketing & Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure and Others (21819/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 375 (9 June 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21819/2020

Judge

AC Basson

The court found that the applicant launched the review application outside the 180-day period prescribed by PAJA, and the delay was per se unreasonable. The applicant failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay, both in launching the review and in filing the replying affidavit, which was substantially late. The prejudice to the Department, BSE, and affected communities was significant, given that most of the contract period had elapsed and 14 bridges had already been manufactured. The interests of justice did not warrant condonation of the delay. The administrative actio…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Procurement
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Judicial Review
• Tender Award
• Delay Rule

Sekoko Mametja Incorporated Attorneys v Fetakgomo Tubatse Local Municipality (60/2021)

Sekoko Mametja Incorporated Attorneys v Fetakgomo Tubatse Local Municipality (60/2021) [2022] ZASCA 28 (18 March 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

60/2021

Judges

Petse, Van der Merwe, Dlodlo, Mbatha, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, despite an invalid tender award, the municipality had to pay for services already rendered under a just and equitable remedy.

• Legality Review
• Tender Award
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Public Law Remedies
• Legality-review

Inventiva Power Minerals (Pty) Limited and Another v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Another (16202/19)

Inventiva Power Minerals (Pty) Limited and Another v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Another (16202/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 180 (25 May 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

16202/19

Judge

N M Mavundla

High Court ordered Eskom to furnish a tender contract and SLA acceptance letter after holding the award remained binding until set aside.

• Tender Award
• Mandamus
• Administrative Action
• Review Delay
• Service Level Agreement
• Administrative-law

Exilaclox (Pty) Ltd v MEC, Provincial Department of Roads and Public Works, Northern Cape Province and Another (1615/2019)

Exilaclox (Pty) Ltd v MEC, Provincial Department of Roads and Public Works, Northern Cape Province and Another (1615/2019) [2020] ZANCHC 57 (15 April 2020)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1615/2019

Judge

Dauds

The Court found that the review Court's order did not constitute an unconditional award of the tender to the applicant. The order required the 1st respondent to negotiate with the applicant regarding requirements and finishes in strict compliance with the terms of reference and building specifications, but did not specify which items were negotiable or non-negotiable. The tender documents themselves made clear that certain items, including parking and office space, were subject to negotiation prior to any award. The parties failed to reach agreement on these material issues, and as a result,…

Source excerpt

• Tender Award
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Negotiation Of Contract Terms
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Exilaclox (Pty) Ltd v MEC, Provincial Department of Roads & Public Works, Northern Cape Province and Another (1615/2019)

Exilaclox (Pty) Ltd v MEC, Provincial Department of Roads & Public Works, Northern Cape Province and Another (1615/2019) [2019] ZANCHC 58 (22 November 2019)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1615/2019

Judge

Dauds

The court found that the applicant was declared the preferred bidder by the review court, but this did not amount to an award of the tender. Material issues, particularly the requirement for all parking to be onsite and the excess office space, remained unresolved, and the parties failed to reach agreement during negotiations. The first respondent never communicated acceptance of the applicant's bid, nor did the review court order an award of the tender. The applicant's interpretation of the order was not supported by the language of the judgment or the facts. The urgency of the application w…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Tender Award
• Interdict
• Preferred Bidder Status
• Contractual Negotiation