Asla Construction (Pty) Ltd v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality awarded a large housing construction contract (the Reeston contract) to Asla Construction (Pty) Ltd to address acute housing shortages in Duncan Village. After the contract was awarded, concluded, and substantially performed—with payments made and work exceeding R30 million—the municipality launched review proceedings about 15 months later, alleging the contract was unlawful for non-compliance with s 217 of the Constitution and procurement legislation. The municipality sought to set aside the contract and invalidate payment certificates. Asla Construction opposed the review, contending that it was brought outside the 180-day period prescribed by PAJA and without a proper application for extension under s 9. The High Court upheld the municipality’s review and set aside the contract, prompting Asla Construction’s appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The High Court’s order setting aside the Reeston contract and invalidating payment certificates was overturned. The municipality’s review application was dismissed with costs, and Asla Construction’s entitlement to payment under the contract was upheld.

This case is a leading authority on the strict application of PAJA’s time-bar provisions and confirms that even allegedly unlawful administrative decisions may be rendered unassailable by unreasonable delay. It reinforces procedural discipline in public procurement reviews, clarifies the proper approach to s 9 extensions, and underscores the importance of considering prejudice and public interest—particularly in socio-economic rights contexts such as housing.