Sekoko Mametja Incorporated Attorneys v Fetakgomo Tubatse Local Municipality

The Fetakgomo Tubatse Local Municipality invited tenders for the provision of debt collection services for a period of three years. Sekoko Mametja Incorporated Attorneys (Sekoko Attorneys) submitted a bid and was awarded the tender together with four other bidders following a competitive bidding process. Sekoko Attorneys rendered debt collection services, successfully collected monies owed to the municipality, and issued invoices for services rendered between January and May 2018. In April 2018, the municipality realised that Sekoko Attorneys’ bid was non-responsive because it allegedly failed to submit proof that its tax affairs were in order and a valid CSD report, as required by the municipality’s Supply Chain Management Policy. The municipality sought to review and set aside its own decision to award the tender on the basis of legality and purported to cancel the appointment. Sekoko Attorneys opposed the review and counter-applied for payment of outstanding invoices totalling approximately R438 260.30. The municipality did not oppose the counter-application and accepted that the services had been rendered. The High Court declared the tender award invalid but dismissed the counter-application for payment. Sekoko Attorneys appealed only against the dismissal of its counter-application.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the High Court dismissing the counter-application was set aside and replaced with an order directing the municipality to pay Sekoko Attorneys R436 250.30 plus interest at 10.25% per annum from 26 November 2019 to date of payment. No order as to costs was made, both in the High Court and on appeal.

This case reinforces the principle that a declaration of invalidity in a legality or tender review does not automatically preclude financial relief. It affirms the duty of courts to consider just and equitable remedies under s 172(1)(b) of the Constitution, particularly where the state has benefited from services rendered under an unlawful contract. The judgment contributes to South African jurisprudence on remedial flexibility in public procurement disputes and aligns SCA authority with Constitutional Court precedent such as Gijima and Asla Construction.