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

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

Impande Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd v MEC For The Department Of Transport- Kwazulu-Natal Province and Another (8544/22P)

Impande Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd v MEC For The Department Of Transport- Kwazulu-Natal Province and Another (8544/22P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 42 (11 April 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

8544/22P

Judge

Ncube

The court found that the Department's decision to cancel the tender was irrational and unlawful. The stated reason of 'administrative non-compliance' is not recognized under Regulation 13 of the Procurement Framework Regulations, and the Department was bound by its original reason for cancellation. The subsequent attempt to justify the cancellation on the basis of 'material irregularity' constituted impermissible ex post facto rationalization. The alleged irregularity regarding the number of bids evaluated did not materially affect the outcome, as the extra bids were rejected and did not impa…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Public Procurement
• Tender Cancellation
• Rationality Review
• Punitive Costs
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act

Road Accident Fund and Others v Mabunda Incorporated and Others; Minister of Transport v Road Accident Fund and Others (1147/2020; 1082/2020)

Road Accident Fund and Others v Mabunda Incorporated and Others; Minister of Transport v Road Accident Fund and Others (1147/2020; 1082/2020) [2022] ZASCA 169; [2023] 1 All SA 595 (SCA) (1 December 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1147/2020; 1082/2020

Judges

Zondi JA, Gorven JA, Musi AJA, Makaula AJA, Masipa AJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appeal was not moot, as the cancellation of the tender remained a live issue and the high court's order had ongoing effects beyond the six-month period. The RAF had authority to cancel the tender through its Bid Adjudication Committee, as the delegation of power remained valid despite the appointment of a new Board. The cancellation complied with Regulation 13(1) of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, as there were changed circumstances due to the adoption of a new operational model and insufficient funds to cover the envisaged expendit…

Source excerpt

• Tender Cancellation
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Mootness
• Service Level Agreement
• Condonation

Unitrade 1047 (Pty) Ltd Isidingo Security Service v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (24270/2022)

Unitrade 1047 (Pty) Ltd Isidingo Security Service v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (24270/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 530 (18 July 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24270/2022

Judge

Davis

The court found that the applicant was not entitled to the documents sought because the tender process had been cancelled before any evaluation or adjudication took place, and thus the requested documents did not exist. The withdrawal of the tender did not constitute administrative action and could only be challenged by legality review, not under PAJA. The urgency claimed by the applicant was not supported by the facts, as the time period for launching a review would only commence upon receipt of reasons for the withdrawal, which had not been requested. The application was without merit and t…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Tender Cancellation
• Urgency
• Legality Review

Kwnel Empire (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited (2019/32080)

Kwnel Empire (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited (2019/32080) [2019] ZAGPJHC 410 (8 October 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/32080

Judge

L R Adams

The High Court struck an urgent interdict application from the roll, finding the applicant’s delay in challenging Eskom’s tender cancellation made the urgency self-created.

• Interim Interdict
• Urgency Rule 6 12
• Tender Cancellation
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Urgent-interdict
• Rule-6-12

SAAB Grintek Defence (Pty) Ltd v South African Police Service and Others (316/2015)

SAAB Grintek Defence (Pty) Ltd v South African Police Service and Others (316/2015) [2016] ZASCA 104; [2016] 3 All SA 669 (SCA) (5 July 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

316/2015

Judges

Mpati, Cachalia, Theron, Wallis, Victor

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the decision by SAPS to cancel the tender was made in the exercise of executive authority and did not constitute administrative action as defined by PAJA. The regulatory framework, including the Preferential Procurement Regulations, permits organs of State to cancel tenders prior to award due to changed circumstances, and the reasons provided by SAPS—namely, the time lapse in evaluation and changed business requirements—were found to be substantive and lawful. The appellant had no right to a hearing before cancellation, and the process was not procedurall…

Source excerpt

• Tender Cancellation
• Executive Authority
• Administrative Action Definition
• Principle Of Legality
• Procedural Fairness
• Preferential Procurement Regulations

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Nambiti Technologies (Pty) Ltd (20580/2014)

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Nambiti Technologies (Pty) Ltd (20580/2014) [2015] ZASCA 167; [2016] 1 All SA 332 (SCA); 2016 (2) SA 494 (SCA) (26 November 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20580/2014

Judges

Maya DP, Bosielo JA, Wallis JA, Petse JA, Dambuza JA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the cancellation of tender CB204/2012 by the City of Tshwane did not constitute administrative action as defined by PAJA. The decision was not of an administrative nature and did not have a direct, external legal effect on the rights of the tenderers, as the municipality reserved the right to cancel the tender at any time before contract formation. The City's changed requirements justified the cancellation under applicable procurement regulations. The High Court's order compelling the municipality to adjudicate the cancelled tender impermissibly infringed…

Source excerpt

• Tender Cancellation
• Administrative Action Definition
• Separation Of Powers
• Municipal Procurement
• Judicial Review
• Preferential Procurement Policy

CFIT (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Defence and Others (22496/2013)

CFIT (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Defence and Others (22496/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 2 (12 January 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22496/2013

Judge

Prinsloo

High Court review of a Defence tender cancellation under PAJA and the PPPFA. The court set aside the cancellation and awarded the tender to CFIT.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Tender Cancellation
• Judicial Review
• Bias In Administrative Action
• Substitution Of Administrative Decision