South Africa Case Law

Joint Venture (Ntema Investments CC / Sedtrade (Pty) (Ltd)) and Another v Department of Human Settlements Free State Province and Another (533/2024)

Joint Venture (Ntema Investments CC / Sedtrade (Pty) (Ltd)) and Another v Department of Human Settlements Free State Province and Another (533/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 185 (18 June 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

533/2024

Judge

Van Zyl

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in bringing the urgent application, despite having knowledge of the relevant facts since November 2023. The relief sought was substantially similar to that in a previous application, which was settled without pursuing the same relief. The applicants' reliance on issues and documents known to them for months, without adequate explanation for the delay, constituted self-created urgency. The court held that self-created urgency does not justify deviation from normal procedures under Rule 6(12). Consequ…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Application
• Self Created Urgency
• Condonation
• Tender Dispute

Spatialize (Pty) Ltd v City of Mbombela Local Municipality (1936/2019)

Spatialize (Pty) Ltd v City of Mbombela Local Municipality (1936/2019) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 29 (15 May 2023)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1936/2019

Judge

B A Mashile

The High Court dismissed claims 8 to 14 arising from disputed contract variations, holding the addenda were not validly proved or signed and estoppel did not apply.

• Contract Variation
• Electronic Signature
• Estoppel
• Tender Dispute
• Interpretation Of Contracts
• Contract-variation

TMT Services and Supplies (Pty) Limited v Mpumalanga Local Government: Department of Transport and Another (59047/2012; 17827/2014)

TMT Services and Supplies (Pty) Limited v Mpumalanga Local Government: Department of Transport and Another (59047/2012; 17827/2014) [2021] ZAGPPHC 69 (22 January 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

59047/2012

Judge

T.J Raulinga

The court held that the documents sought by the applicant are relevant to the issues in dispute, particularly regarding the tender process and the registration status of competing tenderers as debt collectors. The test for relevance is satisfied as the documents may directly or indirectly assist the applicant in advancing its case or damaging the respondent's case. The respondent's argument that the applicant is barred from amending its replication is rejected, as the applicant is entitled to seek condonation and is not ipso facto barred. The issue of confidentiality raised by the respondent…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Of Documents
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Tender Dispute
• Waiver And Estoppel

Jorian Construction CC v Kopanong Local Municipality and Another (1081/2017)

Jorian Construction CC v Kopanong Local Municipality and Another (1081/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 175 (3 October 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1081/2017

Judge

M A Mathebula

The court found that the applicant was not in litigation with the other bidders and that perusal of their tender documents was unnecessary and unreasonable. The documents were not placed before the court nor formed part of the bundles, and the relevant information was contained in the Evaluation Report and Committee minutes. The taxing mistress correctly exercised her discretion in disallowing the perusal fees, as the party and party scale does not provide for such costs in this context. The applicant's attorneys may recover the perusal fees from their client, but not from the respondent unde…

Source excerpt

• Taxation Of Costs
• Party And Party Scale
• Perusal Fees
• Review Of Taxing Master
• Tender Dispute

Phutuma Networks (Pty) Ltd v Telkom SA Limited (A182/2015)

Phutuma Networks (Pty) Ltd v Telkom SA Limited (A182/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 943; [2017] 1 All SA 265 (GP) (16 November 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A182/2015

Judges

R G Tolmay, N Ranchod, L Adams

The court found that the appellant was placed in an untenable position due to the late withdrawal of its legal team, which was not foreseen or communicated in advance. The appellant was not given a fair opportunity to prepare or present its case, and the refusal of the postponement was a misdirection. The court a quo failed to consider the prejudice suffered by the appellant and incorrectly concluded that the appellant had no evidence to support its claim. Furthermore, the requirements for granting absolution from the instance were not met, as the appellant was present and represented, and it…

Source excerpt

• Postponement Of Trial
• Absolution From Instance
• Judicial Discretion
• Tender Dispute
• Costs Orders

Institute of Training and Education for Capacity Building v MEC for Education of the Province of the Eastern Cape (165/12)

Institute of Training and Education for Capacity Building v MEC for Education of the Province of the Eastern Cape (165/12) [2013] ZAECBHC 11 (4 June 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

165/12

Judge

Z.M. Nhlangulela

The court found that the contract price for the second and third years was intended to escalate by 10% per annum from the first year's price, as reflected in annexure 'B'. The defendant's restrictive interpretation was rejected, as it was not supported by the contract or the surrounding circumstances evidenced in correspondence and conduct. The plaintiff had performed its obligations for the second year and was prevented from performing the third year due to the defendant's unlawful repudiation. The plaintiff was entitled to damages for both years, with interest from the date payment fell due…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Contract
• Tender Dispute
• Contractual Interpretation
• Damages For Repuation
• Interest On Damages