Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Siemans (Pty) Limited v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Others (026621/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 555 (7 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed Siemens’ review of Eskom’s TPSCM tender award to GE, holding the award was made lawfully within the valid tender period.
Mamayile Business Enterprise CC v MEC for the Department of Transport and Community Safety Limpopo Province (1186/2024) [2024] ZALMPPHC 32 (2 March 2024)
The court found that the applicant met the threshold for urgency and condoned non-compliance with the Rules. The supplementary affidavit was permissible under Rule 53(4) as it was filed within the prescribed period after delivery of the record. The non-joinder point failed because the relief sought did not prejudice the other bidders, whose participation had already been terminated by administrative action. On the merits, the court held that the tender validity period expired on 30 November 2023, and no valid extension was sought from all bidders prior to expiry. The first respondent's subseq…
Source excerpt
G4S Aviation Company South Africa SOC v Airports Company South Africa SOC Limited (04184/2023; 107270/2023; 106910/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1494 (6 December 2023)
The court found that ACSA unlawfully extended the validity period of the tender without obtaining the consent of all bidders, as required by law. This procedural irregularity vitiated the entire tender process and established a strong prima facie case for the applicants in their anticipated review proceedings. The applicants demonstrated a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, as any relief granted after the five-year tender period would be academic and nugatory. The balance of convenience favoured the applicants, given the potential for unlawful contracts and disruption of fair pro…
Source excerpt
Aventino Ecotroopers Joint Venture and Others v MEC for the Department of Roads and Transport, Gauteng Province and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 330; 28395/2022 (15 May 2023)
The High Court dismissed a procurement review, finding the tender validity period had not lapsed and the applicants remained disqualified.
VZ Contractors CC v King Cetshwayo District Municipality and Others (5056/2021) [2023] ZAKZDHC 72 (9 March 2023)
The High Court set aside a municipality’s late tender award as invalid because the 90-day validity period had expired. The counter-application was dismissed with costs.
Aptitude Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd and Others v City Of Tshwane Metropolitan City and Others (33009/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 924 (28 November 2022)
The Court found that the City of Tshwane Metropolitan City failed to validly extend the tender validity period, as no timeous consent was obtained from all bidders prior to expiry and the tender specification did not provide for such extension. The extension request was made just before expiry, but responses were not received before the procurement process expired. This constituted a material irregularity in the tender process, rendering the award constitutionally invalid. The procurement process did not comply with the requirements of fairness and transparency under section 217 of the Consti…
Source excerpt
City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Takubiza Trading & Projects CC and Others (846/2021) [2022] ZASCA 82; 2023 (1) SA 44 (SCA) (3 June 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Municipality's attempt to extend the tender validity period by sending notifications on the last day did not result in a valid extension, as not all bidders responded timeously. The process was completed unsuccessfully upon expiry of the validity period, and any subsequent award was invalid. The principle established in Telkom SA and Searle applies: once the validity period lapses, the tender process ends and cannot be revived by late confirmations. The Municipality's actions did not comply with the requirements of transparency, equity, and competitiv…
Source excerpt
Toots Coaches Bus Hire and Others v MEC for Gauteng Education and Others (11209/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 327 (8 April 2022)
The court found that the respondents acted outside their authority by awarding the tender after the validity period had expired, without requesting an extension from bidders. This conduct was procedurally unfair and violated the principles of transparency, equity, and competitiveness required by section 217 of the Constitution and PAJA. The applicants demonstrated urgency as they would not obtain substantial redress in due course due to the nature of their business and the impact on their operations. The termination notice was unreasonable given the scale and duration of the contracts. The co…
Source excerpt
Defensor Electronic Security (Pty) Ltd v Centlec SOC Ltd and Another (3372/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 315 (3 December 2021)
The court found that the first respondent awarded the tender after the expiry of the validity period without proper extension or consent from all bidders, rendering the process invalid. The point scoring was irregular, as the evaluation did not consider the total contract period, and the absence of Annexure E prevented verification of the scoring process. The second respondent failed to submit a mandatory pricing schedule, which should have led to its disqualification. The CEO of the first respondent acted outside his authority by exercising discretion not provided for in law. The cumulative…
Source excerpt
Minister of Employment and Labour and Others v Nexus Forensic Services (Pty) Ltd (74499/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 58 (1 February 2021)
The High Court refused leave to appeal against its review setting aside a forensic-services tender award made after the bid validity period expired.
Explore more
