State Information Technology Agency SOC Limited v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Limited

SITA, an organ of state providing IT services to government departments, concluded a settlement agreement with Gijima following the termination of an earlier SAPS contract. In terms of the settlement, Gijima was appointed as a service provider for the Department of Defence (DoD) for a limited period, with the contract extended several times. SITA repeatedly assured Gijima that all procurement requirements had been met. After a payment dispute arose, Gijima instituted arbitration. For the first time, SITA alleged that the DoD agreement and its extensions were constitutionally invalid due to non-compliance with section 217 of the Constitution. SITA approached the High Court to set aside its own decision to appoint and extend Gijima’s contract. The High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal held that the review fell under PAJA and was brought outside the 180-day period. SITA appealed to the Constitutional Court.

Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was upheld in part. The High Court order was set aside and replaced with an order declaring SITA’s decision to appoint Gijima and all subsequent extensions constitutionally invalid, but without divesting Gijima of rights it would otherwise have had under the contract. SITA was ordered to pay Gijima’s costs in all courts.

This case authoritatively clarifies that organs of state may not rely on PAJA to review their own decisions and must instead use legality review. It draws a clear doctrinal boundary between PAJA and the principle of legality, reshaping administrative and constitutional litigation involving public procurement and self-review by the State.