South Africa Case Law

Are Direng Transport and Labour Hire and Another v Rustenburg Local Municipality and Others (UM190/2020)

Are Direng Transport and Labour Hire and Another v Rustenburg Local Municipality and Others (UM190/2020) [2022] ZANWHC 24 (21 June 2022)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM190/2020

Judge

A H Petersen

The applicants failed to establish any reviewable decision by the first respondent regarding the appointment of a service provider under the relevant tender, as no such appointment occurred. The extension of the second respondent's appointment was lawfully executed through a deviation in terms of applicable regulations. The first respondent properly considered, evaluated, and adjudicated the tender, but resolved not to appoint a service provider for valid reasons. The applicants' procedural conduct was deficient, including failure to file heads of argument, improper use of discovery procedure…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Supply Chain Management
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Tender Irregularities
• Punitive Costs
• Uniform Rule 53

MEB Energy (Pty) Ltd v Ndlambe Local Municipality and Another (466/2020)

MEB Energy (Pty) Ltd v Ndlambe Local Municipality and Another (466/2020) [2020] ZAECGHC 30 (28 April 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

466/2020

Judge

NG Beshe

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the interim relief sought, as the respondent provided reasonable explanations for the alleged irregularities and justified the deviation from standard procurement procedures due to the emergency and availability of additional funding. The evidence of alleged corruption was not shown to have affected the outcome. The court held that the balance of convenience and public interest strongly favoured the respondent, given the urgent need to provide water to the community. The applicant did not demonstrate the absence of…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Supply Chain Management
• Interim Interdict
• Tender Irregularities
• Deviation From Procurement Process

Swifambo Rail Leasing (Pty) Limited v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (1030/2017)

Swifambo Rail Leasing (Pty) Limited v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (1030/2017) [2018] ZASCA 167; 2020 (1) SA 76 (SCA) (30 November 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1030/2017

Judges

Lewis, Ponnan, Zondi, Makgoka, Schippers

The SCA set aside PRASA’s locomotive tender to Swifambo, finding corruption, fronting, and material non-compliance. It held the review delay was reasonable or condonable.

• Tender Irregularities
• Fronting
• Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act
• Delay In Review
• Condonation
• Corruption In Procurement

Business Connexion (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (56540/2012)

Business Connexion (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (56540/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 281 (6 June 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

56540/2012

Judge

Louw

High Court costs judgment in a tender review matter. The tender was withdrawn after irregularities were found, leaving only costs for the review and two interlocutory applications.

• Tender Irregularities
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Costs Award
• Interim Interdict
• Bid Evaluation
• Technical Non Compliance

S v Moreroa and Others (A523/2015)

S v Moreroa and Others (A523/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 20 (22 January 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A523/2015

Judges

Jansen, Molefe

Appeal against a section 174 discharge in a corruption and POCA prosecution was dismissed because the State failed to establish a prima facie case.

• Section 174 Discharge
• Corruption
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Tender Irregularities
• Evidentiary Value
• Presumption Of Innocence

Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape (20384/2014)

Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape (20384/2014) [2015] ZASCA 209; [2016] 1 All SA 313 (SCA); 2016 (2) SA 199 (SCA) (9 December 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20384/2014

Judges

M Maya, C Lewis, W Bosielo, M Petse, J Willis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the City of Cape Town failed to institute review proceedings within the 180-day period prescribed by PAJA and did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. The City's application for extension under section 9(1) was inadequately motivated and did not meet the interests of justice. The alleged irregularities in the procurement process were either immaterial or did not amount to grounds for review, as no fraud or corruption was involved and no other tenderer was prejudiced. The court found that Aurecon was not precluded from bidding for the tender…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Procurement
• Tender Irregularities
• Delay In Review
• Supply Chain Management
• Fairness In Administrative Action

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

De Lacy and Another v South African Post Office (CCT 24/10)

De Lacy and Another v South African Post Office (CCT 24/10) [2011] ZACC 17; 2011 (9) BCLR 905 (CC) (24 May 2011)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 24/10

Judges

Moseneke DCJ, Ngcobo CJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Mogoeng J, Mthiyane AJ, Nkabinde J, Van der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J

The Constitutional Court dismissed the application for direct access, finding that the applicants failed to establish any material factual errors in the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment that could reasonably induce an apprehension of bias. The alleged 114 factual errors were not substantiated, and those identified were either immaterial or mere misdirections, not indicative of bias. The admissions in the pleadings did not establish causally relevant fraudulent intent. The applicants' conduct in pursuing unwarranted and unfounded allegations against the judiciary was found to be vexatious and…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Bias
• Direct Access
• Vicarious Liability
• Tender Irregularities
• Delictual Damages
• Costs Orders