Maximum Profit Recovery (Pty) Ltd v Naledi Local Municipality and Others

Naledi Local Municipality appointed Triple M Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd in April 2022 to provide VAT recovery services for three years. The appointment followed an earlier tender process in which a panel of service providers, including Maximum Profit Recovery (Pty) Ltd and Triple M, had been established. When VAT recovery services were required, the municipality invited only four panel members, including Triple M, to submit quotations and ultimately awarded the contract exclusively to Triple M. Maximum Profit was neither invited to quote nor informed of the intention to appoint a single provider. Aggrieved, Maximum Profit sought to review and set aside the award on the basis that the process was unfair, untransparent and uncompetitive, and contrary to s 217 of the Constitution, the PPPFA, PAJA, and the municipality’s Supply Chain Management Regulations. The High Court dismissed the review application with costs. Maximum Profit appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. By the time the appeal was heard, the three‑year contract had expired.

The appeal was dismissed for mootness. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

The case clarifies the Supreme Court of Appeal’s approach to moot appeals in public procurement disputes and reinforces the application of s 16(2)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. It confirms that courts will not entertain appeals merely to provide guidance for future conduct or to restate settled procurement principles, even where conflicting lower‑court judgments exist, absent compelling interests of justice and a proper factual record.