When internal complaints and external regulators fail to resolve a procurement dispute, you can approach the High Court to review and set aside an unlawful procurement decision. This guide explains the judicial review process and key case law that has shaped bidder rights in South Africa.
Who This Is For
- Bidders seeking legal remedies after exhausting other options
- Legal practitioners advising on procurement disputes
- Anyone researching procurement law
- Civil society interested in accountability
What Is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is a court process where a judge examines whether an administrative decision (like a tender award) was made lawfully. The court does not decide who should have won the tender; it assesses whether the process was fair and legal.
The legal basis is the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), which gives effect to the constitutional right to just administrative action.
Grounds for Review Under PAJA
Section 6 of PAJA lists the grounds on which administrative action can be reviewed. Common grounds in procurement cases include:
- Not authorized by law: Decision-maker lacked authority
- Procedurally unfair: Process not followed
- Materially influenced by error of law: Legal mistake
- Relevant considerations not considered: Ignored evidence
- Irrelevant considerations considered: Bias, favoritism
- Taken for improper purpose: Corruption, bad faith
- Arbitrary or capricious: No rational basis
- Unconstitutional: Violated Section 217 principles
When to Consider Litigation
Litigation should be a last resort. Consider it when:
- Internal complaints were ignored or rejected
- Treasury or Public Protector can't provide timely relief
- Contract value justifies legal costs
- You have strong evidence of irregularities
- You need urgent relief before contract is implemented
Timeline & Procedure
The judicial review process follows these steps:
| Stage | Timeline | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Request reasons (PAJA) | Within 90 days | Request written reasons from entity |
| File review application | Within 180 days | Lodge papers at High Court |
| Entity files answering affidavit | +/- 20 days | Entity responds to your papers |
| Applicant files reply | +/- 10 days | You respond to their answer |
| Set down for hearing | Varies | Case placed on court roll |
| Hearing | 1-2 days typically | Oral argument before judge |
| Judgment | Weeks to months | Judge delivers ruling |
Urgent Relief (Interdicts)
If the contract is about to be signed or implemented, you can apply for an urgent interdict to stop it:
- Interim interdict: Temporary order pending final hearing
- Requirements: Prima facie right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience, no alternative remedy
- Timeline: Can be heard within days
Key Case Law
These cases have shaped procurement law in South Africa:
Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings v CEO, SASSA (2014)
The Constitutional Court set aside a R10 billion social grants contract for procedural irregularities, emphasizing that procurement must comply with constitutional requirements.
- Principle: Procurement decisions are subject to constitutional scrutiny
- Relevance: Landmark case on remedy of invalidity
Moseme Road Construction v King Civil Engineering (2010)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a losing bidder has standing to challenge a tender award if they can show the process was unlawful.
- Principle: Bidders have standing to challenge
- Relevance: Confirmed bidder rights to review
Steenkamp v Provincial Tender Board (2006)
The Constitutional Court confirmed that tender boards must act fairly and that affected bidders are entitled to reasons for decisions.
- Principle: Right to reasons
- Relevance: Foundation for PAJA in procurement
State Information Technology Agency v Gijima (2017)
The Constitutional Court held that even if procurement is irregular, courts must consider practical consequences before setting aside contracts.
- Principle: Just and equitable remedy
- Relevance: Courts have discretion on remedy
Costs & Risks
Litigation carries significant costs and risks:
Financial Costs
- Attorney fees: R50,000-R200,000+ for preparation
- Counsel fees: R50,000-R300,000+ for hearing
- Disbursements: Court fees, record preparation, experts
- Adverse costs: If you lose, you may pay the other side's costs
Risks
- Losing: No guarantee of success even with strong case
- Costs order: May have to pay entity's legal costs
- Time: Cases can take 1-3 years
- Limited remedy: Even if you win, contract may not come to you
Finding an Attorney
Look for attorneys with experience in:
- Administrative law
- Constitutional law
- Public procurement
- Urgent applications
Alternatives to Court
Before litigating, consider these alternatives:
- Mediation: Some entities may agree to mediation
- Settlement: Negotiate resolution directly
- Public Protector: Investigation with remedial action
- Auditor-General: Refer for audit qualification
- Move on: Sometimes the best option is to pursue other tenders
Frequently Asked Questions
If I win the review, will I get the contract?
Not necessarily. The court can set aside the decision and order re-evaluation or re-tender. There's no guarantee you'll win on re-evaluation.
Can I claim damages if I should have won?
Potentially, but it's difficult. You must prove you would definitely have won (not just that you might have), which is hard when there are multiple bidders.
What if the contract has already been completed?
Courts generally won't unwind completed contracts. Your remedy may be limited to a declaration of unlawfulness, which can serve future purposes.
Can I do this without an attorney?
Technically yes, but not recommended. High Court procedure is complex, and you'll face experienced legal teams on the other side.
Next Steps
Explore your options:
Need Expert Tender Advice?
Get quotes from verified tender consultants, bid writers, and compliance specialists who can help you navigate procurement disputes and understand your legal options.
- Experienced tender writers
- Bid document preparation
- CSD registration assistance
- B-BBEE compliance support