South Africa Case Law

ML Nkosi Electrical Contractors CC and Another v Ba-Phalaborwa Local Municipality (Appeal) (HCAA40/2023)

ML Nkosi Electrical Contractors CC and Another v Ba-Phalaborwa Local Municipality (Appeal) (HCAA40/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 85 (25 April 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCAA40/2023

Judges

Bresler AJ, Naude-Odendaal J, Du Plessis AJ

The court found that the award of Tender 06/2012 to the appellants was unlawful and invalid due to procedural irregularities and non-compliance with statutory and constitutional procurement requirements. Despite the respondent's delay in instituting self-review proceedings, the importance of upholding the rule of law and legality outweighed the delay. Both parties had performed under the contract, and there was no evidence of fraud or bad faith by the appellants. The court held that, although the contract must be declared invalid, justice and equity require that the appellants not be deprived…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Tender Review
• Unlawful Contract
• Delay In Self Review
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Section 172 Constitution
• Public Procurement Irregularities

South African Tourism Board v Swift Thinking (Pty) Ltd and Another (64333/21 ; 64334/21)

South African Tourism Board v Swift Thinking (Pty) Ltd and Another (64333/21 ; 64334/21) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1311 (6 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64333/21 ; 64334/21

Judge

Khashane La M Manamela

The High Court set aside SA Tourism’s appointments of Swift and Letsema as unlawful procurement decisions, but limited repayment to profits and reasonable costs.

• Public Procurement
• Legality Review
• Section 217 Constitution
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Unlawful Contract
• Delay In Review

EMS Solutions (PTY) Ltd v Mohakare Local Municipality (3972/2020)

EMS Solutions (PTY) Ltd v Mohakare Local Municipality (3972/2020) [2024] ZAFSHC 255 (7 August 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3972/2020

Judge

Mahlangu AJ

The court found that the VAT recovery services agreement between the Plaintiff and Respondent was an administrative agreement that remained valid and binding until set aside by a court in judicial review. The Respondent benefitted substantially from the Plaintiff's services, receiving R35 million in VAT refunds and becoming SARS compliant. The Respondent's counterclaim for review failed due to non-compliance with Uniform Rule 53, as no record was filed. The Plaintiff proved that its services were rendered in accordance with the proposal and the Respondent's instructions, and was therefore ent…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Procurement
• Judicial Review
• Administrative Agreement
• Unlawful Contract
• Costs Award
• Specific Performance

Mobile Telephone Network v Special Investigating Unit (LP/03/2022)

Mobile Telephone Network v Special Investigating Unit (LP/03/2022) [2024] ZAST 6 (24 July 2024)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

LP/03/2022

Judge

K Pillay

The court held that the plaintiff need not attribute unlawful conduct to the excipient to sustain its cause of action. It is sufficient for the plaintiff to allege and prove that the contract was tainted by irregularity, specifically the breach of procurement prescripts under the PFMA. The approach in Allpay and Mining Qualifications Authority was followed, confirming that the consequences of invalidity must be addressed and that benefit from an unlawful contract is subject to public scrutiny. The excipient's argument that the expenditure was not fruitless or wasteful and that no unlawful con…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement Irregularity
• Exception Procedure
• Fruitless And Wasteful Expenditure
• Unlawful Contract
• Just And Equitable Relief

Gauteng Enterprise Propeller v Amahlo Consulting Services CC (22/13270)

Gauteng Enterprise Propeller v Amahlo Consulting Services CC (22/13270) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1476 (28 December 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22/13270

Judge

S Yacoob

The court found that the decisions to appoint Amahlo, conclude the Memorandum of Agreement, and sign the addendum were unlawful, as they contravened procurement procedures and lacked proper board approval. Although GEP did not provide a full explanation for the delay between receiving the complaint and instituting proceedings, the delay was not unreasonable given the circumstances, including the need for a forensic investigation and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Even if the delay had been unreasonable, the patent unlawfulness of the decisions required the court to condone the delay and…

Source excerpt

• Legality Review
• Public Procurement
• Unlawful Contract
• Delay Rule
• Just And Equitable Relief

Mafuma Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Brandfort Forum and Others (5520/2021)

Mafuma Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Brandfort Forum and Others (5520/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 394 (13 October 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5520/2021

Judge

Van Rhyn

The High Court dismissed Mafuma Consulting’s bid to stay a review order setting aside its prepaid electricity meter arrangement with the municipality.

• Stay Of Execution
• Municipal Procurement
• Unlawful Contract
• Electricity Regulation
• Rule 45a
• Contempt Of Court

Ephraim Mogale Local Municipality v Hlongwane NO and Another (JR 1888/2019)

Ephraim Mogale Local Municipality v Hlongwane NO and Another (JR 1888/2019) [2023] ZALCJHB 179; [2023] 9 BLLR 898 (LC); (2023) 44 ILJ 1944 (LC) (7 June 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 1888/2019

Judge

Prinsloo

Labour Court refused to set aside a municipality’s settlement with its former municipal manager, but also declined to make the agreement an order of court.

• Settlement Agreement
• Section 158 1 C Application
• Misconduct
• Municipal Finance Management Act
• Public Policy
• Unlawful Contract

Godimong Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd v Mahikeng Local Municipality (UM255/22)

Godimong Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd v Mahikeng Local Municipality (UM255/22) [2023] ZANWHC 79 (11 April 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM255/22

Judge

S Mfenyana

The court found that the applicant's appointment was not preceded by a lawful procurement process as required by section 217 of the Constitution and relevant procurement regulations. The letter of appointment did not create a valid and enforceable contract because it failed to comply with mandatory public procurement requirements. The applicant did not challenge the termination of its appointment, nor did it seek a declaratory order regarding the validity of the contract. The requirements for a final interdict were not satisfied, as the applicant did not establish a clear right capable of pro…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Section 217 Constitution
• Unlawful Contract
• Final Interdict
• Municipal Tender Process

Sondhlane N.O. and Another v Azabon Trading Enterprises CC

Sondhlane N.O. and Another v Azabon Trading Enterprises CC [2023] ZAGPPHC 172; 34308/2016 (8 March 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34308/2016

Judge

M P N Mbongwe

The High Court dismissed an out-of-time rescission application against a default judgment, finding no proper joinder, no condonation, and no bona fide defence.

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Locus Standi
• Condonation
• Joinder
• Unlawful Contract
• Rescission-of-default-judgment

Freedom Under Law v Minister of Social Development and Others (CCT 48/17)

Freedom Under Law v Minister of Social Development and Others (CCT 48/17) [2021] ZACC 5; 2021 (6) BCLR 575 (CC) (1 April 2021)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 48/17

Judges

Mogoeng, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Theron, Tshiqi, Victor

The Constitutional Court compelled further document production and updated audit verification in the social grants dispute, reserving the profit-determination issue.

• Judicial Supervision
• Social Grants
• Compliance With Court Orders
• Unlawful Contract
• Audit Verification
• Profit Recovery