CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Aptitude Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd v The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another

Citation(251/2024) [2025] ZASCA 72 (30 May 2025)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Civil ProcedureAdministrative Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Public Procurement Law

Facts of the Case

Aptitude Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd was an unsuccessful bidder in tender HHS01 2021/2022 for the supply of mobile water tankers to refill water tanks in informal settlements within the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality's area. The successful bidders were appointed on 12 May 2022. On 20 June 2022, Aptitude and others brought an urgent application to review and set aside the tender award. On 26 November 2022, Ferreira AJ granted an order reviewing and setting aside the tender award and related agreements, but suspended the declaration of invalidity until 28 February 2023. The municipality repeatedly sought extensions of the suspension order through Khumalo J (until 31 May 2023), Van Niekerk AJ (until 31 August 2023), and finally Hassim AJ (until 30 November 2023 or until a new tender decision was made, whichever came first). A final decision on a new tender was made on 30 November 2023 and new agreements were concluded on 30 August 2023. Aptitude appealed against Hassim AJ's extension order.

Legal Issues

  • Whether an appeal becomes moot when the order under appeal has lapsed and the underlying controversy no longer exists
  • Whether a court should exercise its discretion to hear a moot appeal on the basis that it raises a discrete legal issue of public importance
  • Whether the powers of an appeal court under section 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 permit it to decide matters where the decision would have no practical effect or result
  • Whether a high court has the power to extend a suspension order that has already lapsed

Judicial Outcome

The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

An appeal is moot and should be dismissed when the order sought will have no practical effect on the parties because there is no longer an existing or live controversy between them. Courts should refrain from making rulings on moot matters as such decisions would amount to advisory opinions on abstract legal questions. While courts have discretion to hear moot appeals in exceptional circumstances, this discretion is exercised only where a discrete legal issue of public importance arises that would affect matters in future and on which adjudication is required. For a court to exercise this discretion, the legal issue must arise from the specific order under appeal, not from earlier orders in the procedural history that were not themselves appealed. The function of courts is to adjudicate existing legal disputes, not to provide legal advice or opinions on hypothetical questions, and scarce judicial resources should not be wasted on academic questions.

Obiter Dicta

The Court observed that the municipality's conduct in repeatedly dragging its feet in implementing Ferreira AJ's order and always seeking extensions of the suspension order at a very late stage just before expiry "should not be countenanced" and constitutes "an abuse of the court processes." This criticism was obiter as it did not form part of the legal basis for the decision but reflected the Court's disapproval of the municipality's litigation tactics. The Court also made an obiter observation that Aptitude was "justified in pursuing the appeal but for its mootness," which informed the decision not to award costs against Aptitude despite dismissal of the appeal.

Legal Significance

This case provides important guidance on the doctrine of mootness in South African civil procedure and the limited circumstances in which an appellate court will exercise its discretion to decide a moot appeal. It reinforces that courts will not issue advisory opinions on abstract legal questions where there is no longer a live controversy between parties. The judgment also confirms the principle established in section 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act that appeals should be dismissed where the decision sought will have no practical effect or result. The case demonstrates that merely raising a "discrete legal issue of public importance" is insufficient to justify deciding a moot appeal; the legal issue must actually arise from the order under appeal and must be necessary for determination. It also serves as a warning to organs of state (particularly municipalities) against abusing court processes by repeatedly seeking last-minute extensions of court orders, even though in this instance such conduct did not result in a costs order against the municipality due to the justification for the initial appeal.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 7 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • AB and Another v Minister of Social Development[2016] ZACC 43
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a high court does not have power to make an order that a lapsed suspension order remains operative.

  • A B v Pridwin Preparatory School(1134/2017) [2018] ZASCA 150 (01 November 2018)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a matter is moot when the order sought will have no practical effect on the parties because there is no longer an existing or live…

  • Centre for Child Law v The Governing Body of Hoërskool Fochville(156/2015) [2015] ZASCA 155 (8 October 2015)
    Cites

    Cited for identifying the class of case where courts may consider the merits despite mootness, where a discrete legal issue of public importance arises…

  • Lawyers for Human Rights and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another(CCT 18/03) [2004] ZACC 12
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that once a suspension order lapses after it is not renewed, no court has authority to resuscitate the lapsed order.

Cited By 31 Cases

  • Abbott v Overstrand Municipality(99/2015) [2016] ZASCA 68
    Applies

    Applied to establish that a municipality cannot lawfully assume powers it does not have nor can it be compelled to take steps it has no authority to take.

  • Altech Radio Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality(1104/2019) [2020] ZASCA 122 (5 October 2020)
    Appeal From

    The SCA heard the appeal on 24 August 2020 and delivered judgment on 5 October 2020. The court held that the City's delay in bringing the review was…

  • AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others; Minister of Police v AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Others[2021] ZACC 3
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of constitutional interpretation under section 39(2) to promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.

  • Berzack v Huntrex 277 (Pty) Ltd and Others(210/2021) [2022] ZASCA 17 (21 February 2023)
    Applies

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

  • Luke M Tembani and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another(167/2021) [2022] ZASCA 70 (20 May 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts would not readily accept an invitation to adjudicate on issues where the decision sought will have no practical effect or…

  • Marvanic Development (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Safety and Security(232/05) [2006] ZASCA 20
    Cites

    Cited as an example of a case where issues were wholly academic and of historical interest only.

  • Narius Moloto v The Pan Africanist Congress of Azania(1176/2019) [2023] ZASCA 140 (27 October 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for principles on mootness of appeals and the limited circumstances in which courts will exercise discretion to hear moot matters.

  • National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and OthersCCT 10/99; 1999 (2) SA 1 (CC); 2000 (2) BCLR 39 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a case is moot and not justiciable if it no longer presents an existing or live controversy.

  • President of the Republic of South Africa v Democratic Alliance and Others[2019] ZACC 35
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts should be loath to fulfil an advisory role where no actual purpose would be served by the decision.

  • Solidariteit Helpende Hand NPC and Others v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs(104/2022) [2023] ZASCA 35
    Cites

    Cited for the general principle that a matter is moot when a court's judgment will have no practical effect on the parties and courts should refrain from…

  • South African Police Service v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union(CCT 89/10) [2011] ZACC 21
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts should refrain from making rulings on moot matters as the decision will merely amount to an advisory opinion.

  • Willie Aaron Sibiya and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) and OthersCCT 45/04
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a prerequisite for exercising discretion to hear a moot matter is that the order will have some practical effect either on the…

  • Applied for the principle that there is no exhaustive list of real servitudes and that types of servitudes in modern South African law have been relaxed to be…

  • Central Energy Fund SOC Ltd and Another v Venus Rays Trade (Pty) Ltd and Others(119/2021) [2022] ZASCA 54
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that a person contracting with an organ of state in good faith is entitled to assume that the organ has complied with its internal…

  • Chairperson, Eastern Cape Gambling and Betting Board and Another v Vukani Gaming Eastern Cape (Pty) Ltd and Others(1338/2019; 1366/2019; 119/2020) [2021] ZASCA 180
    Distinguishes

    The court holds that nothing in Nambiti Technologies compels a finding that the RFP is reviewable under legality rather than PAJA, declining to resolve the…

  • City of Cape Town v South African National Roads Authority Limited & others(20786/2014) [2015] ZASCA 58 (30 March 2015)
    Cites

    Cited to confirm that s 39(2) requires common law development to promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another v Moipone Fleet (Pty) Ltd(57/2019) [2020] ZASCA 55 (27 May 2020)
    Related To

    Vuma AJ's order finding that the Davis order required cessation from dealing with third parties was later rescinded and is mentioned for background.

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Link Africa (Pty) Limited and Others[2015] ZACC 29
    Appeal From

    The High Court (Avvakoumides AJ) dismissed the City's application with costs. The Court found that section 22 of the Electronic Communications Act does not…

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Malvigenix NPC t/a Wecanwin and Others(90/2023) [2024] ZASCA 76 (16 May 2024)
    Related To

    This is the high court judgment that declared invalid and set aside the City's 2012 supplementary valuation roll and 2013 general valuation roll.

  • Dendy v University of the Witwatersrand(597/05) [2007] ZASCA 30
    Cites

    Cited in support of the principle that common law development must be appropriate within its own paradigm.

  • Doctor Sudhir Mohun and Another v Advocate Brett Kingsley Phillips N O obo Shearer and Another(1219/2021) [2022] ZASCA 186
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that if the common law is to be developed, it must occur in a way most appropriate for the development of the common law within its own…

  • Eedenprop (Pty) Ltd v The Kouga Municipality(541/10) [2011] ZASCA 92 (31 May 2011)
    Considers

    Considered by the court a quo regarding tender requirements, but this court found s 172(1) was not relevant to the dispute.

  • Govan Mbeki Municipality v New Integrated Credit Solutions (Pty) Ltd(121/2020) [2021] ZASCA 34 (7 April 2021)
    Cites

    Cited to demonstrate the burgeoning phenomenon of state self-review, where organs of state seek to undo prior procurement decisions after contracts have run…

  • Khutala Property Consortium (Pty) Ltd v Mtubatuba Municipality and Others(1299/2018) [2020] ZASCA 35 (6 April 2020)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle from this case that estoppel cannot be relied on in the context of invalid municipal actions.

  • Lieutenant Colonel KB O'Brien NO v The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others(1271/2021) [2022] ZASCA 178
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the delay rule flows directly from the rule of law and its requirement for certainty.

  • Lopes and Another v Executive Mayor of the Knysna Local Municipality & Others(345/2024) [2025] ZASCA 157 (20 October 2025)
    Distinguishes

    Distinguished from the present case on the basis that it involved a discrete legal issue regarding procurement powers, whereas the current appeal does not…

  • Madibeng Local Municipality v DDP Valuers (Pty) Ltd and Another(1284/2017) [2020] ZASCA 70 (18 June 2020)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that cancellation of a tender by an organ of state prior to its adjudication does not constitute administrative action under PAJA…

  • Merifon (Pty) Limited v Greater Letaba Municipality and Another[2022] ZACC 25
    Distinguishes

    Merifon argued the second category from RPM Bricks was applicable, but the Court distinguished it, finding the case fell into the first category (act beyond…

  • Merifon (Pty) Ltd v Greater Letaba Municipality and Another(1112/2019) [2021] ZASCA 50 (22 April 2021)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that failure by a statutory body to comply with provisions prescribed for the validity of a transaction cannot be remedied by…

  • Minister of Transport v Prodiba (Pty) Ltd(20028/2014) [2015] ZASCA 38 (25 March 2015)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that estoppel cannot be used to give effect to what is not permitted by law; invalidity follows uniformly and does not depend on…

  • Municipal Employees Pension Fund and Another v Mongwaketse[2022] ZACC 9
    Follows

    The Court cites this case for the principle that estoppel is impermissible where it would give indirect validity to ultra vires conduct.

  • Municipal Employees Pension Fund v Mongwaketse(969/2019) [2020] ZASCA 181 (23 December 2020)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that estoppel cannot create a situation that is unlawful.

  • National Education Health and Allied Workers Union v Minister of Public Service and Administration and Others; South African Democratic Teachers Union and Others v Department of Public Service and Administration and Others; Public Servants Association and Others v Minister of Public Service and Administration and Others; National Union of Public Service and Allied Workers Union v Minister of Public Service and Administration and Others[2022] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited for the long-standing rule that legality reviews must be initiated without undue delay and that courts have discretion to refuse or overlook delay.

  • Ngqukumba v Minister of Safety & Security(660/12) [2013] ZASCA 89 (31 May 2013)
    Cites

    Cited in support of the principle that a court should not compel performance of an illegality.

  • Siyangena Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa and Others(487/2021) [2022] ZASCA 149 (1 November 2022)
    Cites

    Cited as precedent for sanctioning non-compliance with the rules on preparation of a core bundle by ordering that attorneys would not be permitted to claim…

  • South African Express Limited v Bagport (Pty) Ltd(160/2019) [2020] ZASCA 13 (19 March 2020)
    Applies

    Applied to distinguish between non-compliance with internal procedures and non-compliance with empowering provisions for purposes of estoppel against an organ…

  • Stand 242 Hendrik Potgieter Road Ruimsig (Pty) Ltd v Göbel NO(246/10) [2011] ZASCA 105 (1 June 2011)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that estoppel cannot operate to allow a contravention of a statute.

  • The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v The Southern Africa Litigation Centre(867/15) [2016] ZASCA 17 (15 March 2016)
    Applies

    The court applies the principle from this case that mootness does not preclude an appeal if it raises a discrete issue of public importance that will affect…

  • The Thaba Chweu Rural Forum & Others v The Thaba Chweu Local Municipality and others(737/2021) [2023] ZASCA 25 (14 March 2023)
    Applies

    Lombardy is applied to distinguish this appeal from SAPOA, accepting a 22-month delay as reasonable due to illegality in the manner the supplementary valuation…

  • Yellow Star Properties 1020 (Pty) Limited v MEC: Department of Development Planning and Local Government (Gauteng)(549/2007) [2009] ZASCA 25 (27 March 2009)
    Considers

    Considered in relation to whether it is permissible to rely on res judicata or issue estoppel to enforce a legally invalid contract.

  • Explore More Cases

    More Civil Procedure cases

    • (1) Douglas Tanyanyiwa (2) Douglas Warriors Football Club v Lawrence Bernard GwaradaCivil Appeal No. SC 150/11; Judgment No. SC 79/2014
    • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97
    • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited & 2 Others v Good Living Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 50/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 351/19
    • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited and Others v Goodliving Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 18/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 444/19
    • Aaron Kundiona v Masvingo Cooperative Union and Messenger of CourtHMA 05-20; HC 25-20

    More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
    2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97