MEC for the Department of Public Works and Others v Ikamva Architects CC and Others

Ikamva Architects CC was appointed in 2003 by the Eastern Cape Department of Public Works as consulting architects for the Frere Hospital upgrade project. The Department later repudiated the contract after appointing another implementing agent. Ikamva sued the MECs for Public Works and Health for damages. During the damages action, the Departments repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations, leading to an order that their defence would be struck out upon non-compliance. After continued non-compliance, default judgment was granted in 2015 for over R41 million. Numerous subsequent attempts by the Departments to rescind, stay execution, or review the underlying contract failed up to the Constitutional Court. Ikamva executed on the judgment, including attachment of movable property and a bank account of the Department of Health. The MECs brought an urgent application to set aside or stay execution, raising issues about the validity of prior orders and the permissibility of attaching state funds. The full court stayed execution pending appeal but refused to declare prior orders nullities, and made adverse costs orders against Ikamva. The MECs appealed to the SCA, seeking orders declaring earlier judgments and attachments invalid, relief not sought in the court a quo.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The cross-appeal succeeded only in part: the punitive and adverse costs orders made by the full court were reversed, each party was ordered to pay its own costs in respect of the cross-appeal, and the High Court order was amended to reflect revised costs orders.

The case reinforces core principles of South African appellate procedure: an appellate court cannot grant relief not sought in the court below, and final judgments cannot be undermined through collateral attacks. It affirms the importance of finality in litigation involving the State and clarifies the limits of challenges to execution once a judgment debt is final and binding. The judgment also underscores fairness in costs orders, even where a litigant has been successful over protracted litigation.