Resultant Finance (Pty) Ltd v Head of Department for the Department of Health, KwaZulu-Natal and Others

Resultant Finance (Pty) Ltd was awarded a tender by the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Health in April 2015 to manage the leasing of medical and non-medical equipment under a five-year contract. A key tender requirement (clause 2.34 of the RFP) was that the bidder be registered with the Financial Services Board (FSB), failing which the bid would be invalid. Resultant Finance was not itself FSB-registered and submitted the bid in its own name, without attaching proof of FSB registration for any joint venture partner. After disputes about performance, funding, and compliance, and following a forensic investigation into the procurement process, the Department cancelled the contract in June 2017. Resultant Finance instituted proceedings to enforce the contract, while the MEC for Finance later brought review proceedings to set aside the tender award as unlawful. The High Court dismissed Resultant Finance’s application, upheld the review, and set aside the tender award. Resultant Finance appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeals were dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, on the basis that the matter was moot under s 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.

The case reaffirms the doctrine of mootness in South African appellate jurisprudence and the discretion of appellate courts to dismiss appeals that no longer have practical effect. It underscores strict compliance with mandatory tender requirements in public procurement under s 217 of the Constitution and confirms that non-compliance renders tender awards unlawful. The judgment also highlights that parties need not succeed on appeal to pursue contractual damages and that courts will not decide academic issues merely to facilitate future litigation.