Waymark Infotech (Pty) Limited v Road Traffic Management Corporation

Waymark Infotech (Pty) Ltd was the successful bidder in a public tender administered by the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC), a Schedule 3 public entity under the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999 (PFMA), for the development and installation of an Enterprise Resource Planning system. A contract was concluded on 31 March 2009 for professional services to be rendered over three years, with a total contract value of approximately R33.7 million. After Waymark commenced performance, the RTMC suspended some services in 2010. Litigation followed, and Waymark ultimately sued for damages exceeding R6.7 million, alleging repudiation. The RTMC raised a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the contract was void and unenforceable because it had not been authorised by the Minister of Finance as allegedly required by s 66(3)(c) of the PFMA, contending that the contract constituted a future financial commitment.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the Gauteng Division of the High Court was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the RTMC’s counterclaim with costs.

The case clarifies the scope of ss 66 and 68 of the PFMA and confirms that ordinary procurement contracts concluded by public entities, even if extending over multiple financial years, do not require ministerial authorisation merely because they entail future payments. It draws a clear distinction between procurement regulation and controls over borrowing and extraordinary fiscal commitments, preventing an overly restrictive interpretation that would impede routine government contracting.