Madibeng Local Municipality v DDP Valuers (Pty) Ltd and Another

Madibeng Local Municipality invited tenders in 2013 for the compilation of a general valuation roll and residual valuation services for the period 2014–2018. Despite cheaper bids from DDP Valuers and Activa Valuation Services, the tender was awarded to Dijalo Property Valuers. DDP successfully reviewed and set aside that award, with the matter remitted for reconsideration. By then, Dijalo had already completed the valuation roll, leaving only residual services outstanding. The municipality purported to cancel the tender and instead appointed Activa under regulation 32 of the Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations, relying on Activa’s existing contract with the Greater Taung Local Municipality. DDP again approached the High Court, which set aside the municipality’s failure to reconsider the tender and the appointment of Activa, remitting the matter for reconsideration. The municipality sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, but by the time the matter was heard, Activa’s appointment had expired on 30 June 2018.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case clarifies the application of mootness and the ‘practical effect or result’ requirement in sections 16 and 17 of the Superior Courts Act. It emphasises that appeal courts should not be burdened with moot matters and provides authoritative guidance on the proper handling of applications for leave to appeal within the Supreme Court of Appeal.