Millennium Waste Management (Pty) Limited v Chairperson of the Tender Board: Limpopo Province and Others

The Limpopo Department of Health and Social Development invited tenders for the removal, treatment and disposal of healthcare waste. Fourteen tenders were submitted, including by Millennium Waste Management (the appellant) and a consortium (the third respondent). Tenders were evaluated in two phases: administrative compliance and technical compliance. The appellant was disqualified at the first phase for allegedly failing to sign a declaration of interest form, despite having completed and initialled it. The consortium emerged as the only remaining tenderer and was awarded the tender. Inspections conducted after the award revealed deficiencies in both the appellant’s and the consortium’s compliance, and the consortium was later afforded an opportunity to explain defects after the tender had already been awarded. The appellant sought to review and set aside the tender award under PAJA. The High Court dismissed the application, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The decision of the High Court was set aside, and the tender award was reviewed and declared inconsistent with PAJA. The matter was remitted for appropriate relief consistent with the requirements of just and equitable remedies under PAJA.

This case is a leading authority on fairness and flexibility in public procurement. It confirms that tender awards are administrative action subject to PAJA, that procurement rules must be applied in a manner consistent with constitutional values, and that minor or innocent non-compliance should not mechanically result in disqualification. It also clarifies the proper interpretation of ‘acceptable tender’ and the scope of just and equitable remedies under section 8 of PAJA.