State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd

SITA, an organ of state responsible for procuring IT services for government departments, concluded a series of contracts with Gijima, a private ICT company. After unlawfully terminating an earlier SAPS-related contract, SITA negotiated a settlement whereby Gijima would abandon its damages claim in exchange for a new contract to provide IT services to the Department of Defence. Despite repeated assurances and warranties by SITA that procurement requirements had been met, the contract was concluded without following a competitive bidding process as required by s 217 of the Constitution. After services were rendered and a payment dispute arose, SITA for the first time alleged that the contract was unconstitutional and invalid, and sought a declaratory order setting aside its own decision without instituting a review under PAJA or seeking condonation for delay.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

This case is a leading authority confirming that organs of state are bound by PAJA when seeking to review their own administrative decisions and cannot circumvent PAJA by invoking the principle of legality. It clarifies the relationship between PAJA and legality review, reinforcing PAJA as the primary mechanism for reviewing administrative action and preserving the integrity of its procedural safeguards, particularly the 180-day rule.