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

Steenkamp NO v The Provincial Tender Board of the Eastern Cape

CitationCase CCT 71/05; 2006 (3) SA 151 (SCA)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Constitutional LawAdministrative 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
Law of Delict
Public Procurement Law

Facts of the Case

The national State Tender Board invited tenders in July 1995 for supply of services related to an automatic cash payment system for social pensions and welfare grants in the Eastern Cape. Balraz Technologies (Pty) Ltd submitted a tender on 8 September 1995, though it was only incorporated on 17 October 1995 (after the tender submission deadline). On 22 March 1996, the Provincial Tender Board of the Eastern Cape awarded the contract to Balraz despite reservations from technical committees about Balraz's expertise. Balraz accepted the award and the Department of Health placed an order. However, in March 1997, a dissatisfied tenderer (Cash Paymaster Services) successfully challenged the tender award on review. On 6 June 1997, the High Court set aside the tender awards to both Balraz and Pensecure (another successful tenderer) on grounds of administrative irregularity and unfairness. By then, Balraz had been placed under final liquidation. Balraz had incurred out-of-pocket expenses of R4.35 million in reliance on the tender award to position itself to fulfill the contract obligations. The liquidator claimed delictual damages from the tender board for these expenses, alleging negligent failure to properly perform statutory functions in evaluating and awarding tenders.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter as involving constitutional issues
  • Whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal
  • Whether a successful tenderer whose award is subsequently set aside on review may claim delictual damages from a tender board for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in reliance on the award
  • Whether the conduct of the tender board in negligently awarding a tender that was later set aside constitutes wrongfulness in delict
  • Whether a tender board owes a legal duty of care to a successful tenderer in circumstances where the tender award is subsequently invalidated
  • Whether the tender submitted by Balraz was valid given that it was submitted before the company was incorporated
  • Whether negligence on the part of the tender board was established

Judicial Outcome

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. The decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissing the claim for delictual damages was upheld, albeit on different grounds focusing on wrongfulness rather than the validity of the tender.

Ratio Decidendi

A breach of administrative justice by a tender board does not per se constitute wrongfulness in delict. To establish wrongfulness and a legal duty of care in the tender context, courts must undertake a normative enquiry considering: (1) whether the empowering statute expressly or impliedly contemplates damages liability; (2) whether alternative remedies exist; (3) whether the statutory scheme aims to protect individuals or advance public good; (4) whether the public functionary has discretion; (5) whether liability would have a chilling effect on performance of administrative functions; (6) whether the claimant could have avoided the loss; (7) foreseeability of harm. Where governing legislation establishes an independent tender board with wide discretion to evaluate and award tenders in the public interest, and does not contemplate damages remedies, and where alternative remedies exist (judicial review, fresh tenders, contractual protection), policy considerations preclude recognition of a delictual duty of care owed by the tender board to a successful tenderer whose award is subsequently set aside, even where the tender board acted negligently but honestly. The purpose of public procurement legislation is primarily to ensure fair, transparent, competitive and cost-effective procurement in the public interest, not to create private law rights for individual tenderers.

Obiter Dicta

The Court made several important observations: (1) Moseneke DCJ noted that if an administrative decision is made in bad faith, under corrupt circumstances, or completely outside the legitimate scope of the empowering provision, different policy considerations may apply and delictual liability might arise. (2) Where legislation has a manifest purpose to extend protection to individual members of the public, different considerations may apply regarding duty of care. (3) The Court observed that PAJA's remedial provisions (particularly section 8 allowing compensation in exceptional cases) primarily provide for public law remedies, not private law damages, though it did not need to determine when those exceptional cases might arise as PAJA was not applicable to this case. (4) The Court noted that prudent successful tenderers may negotiate contractual terms for restitution of out-of-pocket expenses if a tender is set aside, as parties become equal contractors after award. (5) Both majority and minority noted but did not decide the issue of whether the tender was void ab initio due to Balraz lacking legal personality when it submitted the tender, though both the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal had found the tender invalid on this basis. (6) Sachs J in concurrence noted that constitutionally-based public law remedies (as later articulated in PAJA) should cover the field and it would be inappropriate to develop parallel common law delictual remedies in this administrative law context. (7) The minority judgment (Langa CJ and O'Regan J) observed that the distinction between out-of-pocket expenses and loss of profits is material, and that protecting successful tenderers' ability to recover actual expenses incurred in good faith performance of contractual obligations is important for government procurement efficiency and for protecting emerging businesses.

Legal Significance

This is a landmark case defining the interface between public law and private law remedies in South Africa's constitutional dispensation. It establishes that administrative breaches do not automatically give rise to delictual liability and sets important limits on when tender boards may be held liable in delict to tenderers. The case clarifies that: (1) the exercise of public power is always a constitutional matter; (2) administrative justice is a constitutional imperative derived from the Constitution, not from common law; (3) breaches of administrative duties do not per se constitute wrongfulness in delict; (4) policy considerations must be assessed to determine if a legal duty of care exists; (5) public law remedies (review, appeals) are the primary mechanisms for vindicating administrative justice breaches; (6) delictual damages for pure economic loss in the tender context will rarely be available, particularly for honest but negligent administrative decisions. The case is significant in the public procurement context and has implications for government liability generally. It also provides guidance on when PAJA remedies (including the exceptional power to award compensation under section 8) may be appropriate. The dissenting judgment raises important considerations about protection of emerging businesses in government procurement and the distinction between claims for out-of-pocket expenses versus loss of profits.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 54 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Alix Jean Carmichele v The Minister of Safety and Security and The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development2001 (4) SA 938 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that determining whether conduct is wrongful involves a question of legal policy answered in light of constitutional norms and values.

  • Allan Aubrey Boesak v The StateCCT 25/00, [2000] ZACC 25, 1 December 2000
    Cites

    Cited for factors relevant to whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

  • Fose v Minister of Safety and SecurityCCT 14/96; 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC); 1997 (7) BCLR 851 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts may grant appropriate relief when constitutional rights are infringed.

  • Gouda Boerdery BK v Transnet LimitedCase no: 314/03
    Cites

    Cited on the difficulty of keeping the elements of wrongfulness and negligence distinct in delict.

  • Greys Marine Hout Bay (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Public Works and Others

Cited By 53 Cases

  • AB Ventures Limited v Siemens Limited(294/10) [2011] ZASCA 58 (31 March 2011)
    Cites

    Cited for principle that each case involves policy considerations when extending the common law.

  • Action SA v The Electoral Commission of South Africa(006/2021/) [2022] ZAEC 2 (18 January 2022)
    Applies

    Court applies principles regarding improper performance of an administrative function and appropriate remedy under the Constitution.

  • Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others(CCT 48/13) [2013] ZACC 42
    Cites

    Cited to support the proposition that procurement disputes about interpretation of section 217 of the Constitution raise constitutional matters.

  • AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others (No 2)[2014] ZACC 12
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that in each case of administrative invalidity the remedy must fit the injury, be just and equitable, and effectively vindicate the…

Practice This Case

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

Case No: 347/04 (SCA)
Cites

Cited for the proposition that tender awards constitute administrative action.

  • Independent Communications Authority of South Africa and Others v Open Heaven Community Radio and Others(1133/2023) [2025] ZASCA 117 (12 August 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for factors relevant to whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

  • Ingledew v Financial Services Board(CCT 6/02) [2003] ZACC 5
    Cites

    Cited for factors relevant to whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

  • J D Pennington and M E Summerley v The StateCase CCT 14/97 (unreported, decided 18 September 1997)
    Cites

    Cited for factors relevant to whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

  • Joaquim Augusto de Freitas and Independent Association of Advocates of South Africa v The Society of Advocates of Natal(CCT 2/98) [1998] ZACC 13
    Cites

    Cited for factors relevant to whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

  • Kruger v Coetzee1966 (2) SA 428 (A)
    Cites

    Cited for the two elements of negligence in delict: foreseeability of harm and failure to take reasonable steps to guard against harm.

  • Lilian Dudley v The City of Cape Town and Ivan TomsCCT 5/04
    Applies

    Court applied the principle that the grundnorm of administrative law is now in the Constitution not the doctrine of ultra vires.

  • Logbro Properties CC v S A Bedderson, NO and OthersCase no: 372/2001
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that tender awards constitute administrative action.

  • 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 administrative law is now grounded in constitutional principles.

  • Minister of Health and Professor D McIntyre NO v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd and OthersCCT 59/04; 2005 (2) SA 530 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the exercise and control of public power is always a constitutional matter.

  • Minister of Safety and Security v Tyokwana(827/13) [2014] ZASCA 130 (23 September 2014)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that wrongfulness is determined on a conspectus of all facts and considerations.

  • Minister of Safety and Security v Van Niekerk(CCT 74/06) [2007] ZACC 15
    Applies

    Court applies principles from Van Duivenboden that wrongfulness depends on whether affording a remedy is congruent with the sense of justice of the community…

  • National Education Health and Allied Workers Union v University of Cape Town and OthersCCT 2/02; 2003 (3) SA 1 (CC); 2003 (2) BCLR 154 (CC); (2002) 23 ILJ 95 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for factors relevant to whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

  • N K v Minister of Safety and Security2005 (6) SA 419 (CC) [also reported as 2005 (8) BCLR 661 (CC); Case CCT 52/04]
    Cites

    Cited for the approach to determining wrongfulness involving a broad assessment of whether it is just and reasonable to afford a civil claim.

  • Olitzki Property Holdings v State Tender Board and Premier of the Province of GautengCASE NO: 698/98
    Considers

    Considered and distinguished: court found that unsuccessful tenderers cannot claim loss of profits; the instant case concerns a successful tenderer claiming…

  • President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Dental Association and Another[2015] ZACC 2
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the exercise and control of public power is always a constitutional matter and that administrative justice is fundamental to…

  • Rail Commuters Action Group and Others v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail and Others2004 CCT 56/03
    Cites

    Cited for principles relating to transparency and accountability of organs of state in public administration.

  • SA Bank of Athens Limited v May van ZylCase No 431/03 (SCA, unreported judgment delivered 21 February 2005)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the exercise and control of public power is always a constitutional matter.

  • Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Duncan Dock Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd and AnotherCase No 12/97 (Supreme Court of Appeal)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that in relation to claims for pure economic loss the requirement of wrongfulness gains particular importance.

  • S v Bhulwana and S v GwadisoCCT 12/95 and CCT 11/95
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts may grant appropriate relief when constitutional rights are infringed.

  • Telimatrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SACase No 459/04 (SCA) (Judgment delivered 9 September 2005)
    Cites

    Cited for the conservative approach toward extension of delictual liability boundaries and immunity of adjudicators from damages claims in respect of incorrect…

  • The Cape Metropolitan Council v Metro Inspection Services Western Cape CC and OthersCase No: 10/99 (SCA), reported at 2001 (4) SA 1013 (SCA)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that once a tender is awarded the state and tenderer are equal contracting parties.

  • The Local Transitional Council of Delmas and Another v Wilhelm Abraham BoshoffCase number: 302/2004 (Supreme Court of Appeal)
    Cites

    Cited on the difficulty of keeping the elements of wrongfulness and negligence distinct in delict.

  • The Premier of the Province of the Western Cape v Fair Cape Property Developers (Pty) LtdCase No: 41/2002
    Cites

    Cited for factors relevant to assessing wrongfulness in delict, including considerations of legal policy in the light of the Constitution.

  • The State v Sipho Zakele NtseleCCT 25/97 (decided 14 October 1997)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that constitutional rights entitle parties to appropriate relief.

  • Tosholo v Road Accident Fund(875/2023) [2025] ZASCA 21 (19 March 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the approach to determining wrongfulness involving considerations of legal policy in the light of the Constitution.

  • Transnet Limited v Goodman Brothers (Pty) Ltd(373/98) [2000] ZASCA 101 (9 November 2000)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the award of a tender constitutes administrative action.

  • William Frederick Gerber and Others v Member of the Executive Council of the Gauteng Provincial Government, Development Planning & Local Government and AnotherCase no: 303/2001
    Cites

    Cited for factors relevant to whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

  • Xolisile Zondi v Member of the Executive Council for Traditional and Local Government Affairs and OthersCase CCT 73/03 (Decided on 29 November 2005)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the right to administrative justice is a constitutional imperative.

  • 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 (by Jafta J) for the description of implied power: that powers may be presumed to have been impliedly conferred because they constitute a logical or…

  • Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town(20384/2014) [2015] ZASCA 209 (9 December 2015)
    Cites

    Cited for principle that fairness in procurement is required to ensure even treatment of tenderers and the best outcome.

  • Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 39/10) [2010] ZACC 26
    Applies

    Applied to explain that PAJA confers on a court a generous jurisdiction to make orders that are just and equitable in proceedings for judicial review,…

  • BE obo JE v Member of the Executive Council for Social Development, Western Cape[2021] ZACC 23
    Follows

    Cited for the principle that courts are seized with a matter when an aggrieved party seeks to appeal against a court's finding on wrongfulness, and for the…

  • Brooks v Minister of Safety and Security(036/08) [2008] ZASCA 141 (27 November 2008)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that negligent causation of pure economic loss is prima facie not wrongful unless policy considerations require compensation.

  • Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality v Asla Construction (Pty) Limited[2019] ZACC 15
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that lawful procurement is a constitutional issue and for the purpose of section 217(1) to eliminate fraud and corruption in public…

  • 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 remedy must be fair to all those affected by it, and yet effectively vindicate the rights violated.

  • City of Cape Town v Helderberg Park Development (Pty) Ltd(291/07) [2008] ZASCA 79 (2 June 2008)
    Related To

    Constitutional Court confirmation of the SCA decision in Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape 2006 (3) SA 151 (SCA).

  • Comwezi Security Services (Pty) Ltd & another v Cape Empowerment Trust Ltd(182/13) [2014] ZASCA 22 (28 March 2014)
    Cites

    Cited as approving the decision in Erasmus regarding suspension of performance due to repudiation.

  • Democratic Alliance v Minister of Home Affairs and Another[2025] ZACC 8
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that the remedy must fit the injury and must be fair to those affected while effectively vindicating the right violated.

  • Eskom Holdings Limited and Kwanda Ferro Alloy African Resources (Pty) Ltd v The New Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd(358/08) [2009] ZASCA 8 (13 March 2009)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the purpose of a public remedy is to afford prejudiced party administrative justice, advance efficient and effective public…

  • Esorfranki Pipelines (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mopani District Municipality and Others(40/13) [2014] ZASCA 21 (28 March 2014)
    Cites

    The court cited this case when discussing the generous discretion conferred by section 8 of PAJA and that the remedies are intended to be non-exhaustive and…

  • Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd(653/07) [2008] ZASCA 134 (26 November 2008)
    Cites

    Cited for the policy consideration that extension of delictual liability may be refused if it imposes an unwarranted additional burden on the defendant.

  • F v Minister of Safety and Security and Allister Claude van Wyk(CCT 30/11) [2011] ZACC 37
    Cites

    Cited for difference between wrongfulness and negligence and the public policy nature of the wrongfulness enquiry.

  • Government of the Republic of South Africa v Thabiso Chemicals (Pty) Ltd(148/2007) [2008] ZASCA 112 (25 September 2008)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the relationship between parties to a tender is governed by contract law after the tender is awarded.

  • Greater Tzaneen Municipality v Bravospan 252 CC(Case no. 428/2021) [2022] ZASCA 155 (7 November 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that every breach of administrative justice would implicate the Constitution and entitle the aggrieved party to appropriate relief, and…

  • Home Talk Developments (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality(225/2016) [2017] ZASCA 77 (2 June 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a plaintiff claiming pure economic loss must allege wrongfulness and plead facts on which he relies to support the allegation.

  • Itzikowitz v Absa Bank Limited(20729/2014) [2016] ZASCA 43 (31 March 2016)
    Cites

    Cited to support the proposition that conduct causing pure economic loss is not prima facie wrongful.

  • Kadoma Trading 15 (Pty) Ltd v Noble Crest CC(452/12) [2013] ZASCA 52 (28 March 2013)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that an entity with no legal personality cannot perform juristic acts such as entering into a contract.

  • Kini Bay Village Association v The Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality(434/07) [2008] ZASCA 66 (29 May 2008)
    Considers

    Considered as an example where the Constitutional Court found it inappropriate to make costs awards to avoid chilling effect on constitutional rights.

  • Kwa Sani Municipality v Underberg/Himeville Community Watch Association(180/2014) [2015] ZASCA 24 (20 March 2015)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the award of a contract for services by an organ of state amounts to administrative action.

  • Mafoko Security Patrols (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mjayeli Security (Pty) Ltd and Others(590/2024) [2025] ZASCA 179 (28 November 2025)
    Cites

    Cited to support the high court's formulation of its remedial discretion as wide, requiring a remedy that is fair to those affected while vindicating the right…

  • Makhanya v Minister of Water Affairs & others(796/2017) [2018] ZASCA 172 (30 November 2018)
    Applies

    Applied to confirm that administrative justice is a constitutional imperative and that the remedy must fit the injury, be fair to those affected, vindicate the…

  • mCubed International (Pty) Ltd and mCubed Life Limited v Leon John Singer NO and Others(118/08) [2009] ZASCA 6 (11 March 2009)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition regarding wrongfulness in the context of negligent causation of pure economic loss.

  • Michael Hermann Armbruster and Another v The Minister of Finance and Others(CCT 59/06) [2007] ZACC 17
    Cites

    Cited in support of the test for granting leave to appeal.

  • Minister of Social Development v Phoenix Cash & Carry – PMB CC(189/06) [2007] ZASCA 26
    Applies

    Applied to determine that a close corporation incorporated after the closing date of a tender rendered its bid invalid.

  • Minister: Western Cape Department of Social Development v Esau and Another(379/2019) [2020] ZASCA 103 (16 September 2020)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that breach of a public duty ordinarily attracts a public law remedy rather than the private law remedy of damages.

  • MTO Forestry (Pty) Limited v A H Swart NO(420/2016) [2017] ZASCA 57 (22 May 2017)
    Cites

    Cited as one of the cases that clarified that wrongfulness and negligence are distinct elements of delictual liability.

  • Nandi Jacobs v The Minister of Justice and Correctional Services(431/2020) [2021] ZASCA 151 (27 October 2021)
    Considers

    The court considered the Constitutional Court decision in Steenkamp N O on appeal which concluded that nothing in the statutory scheme contemplated that an…

  • 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 to support the proposition that questions about whether the State acted beyond its powers are constitutional matters.

  • Nohour and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development(1136/2018) [2020] ZASCA 27 (26 March 2020)
    Cites

    Cited to confirm that the Constitutional Court endorsed the test for negligence formulated in Kruger v Coetzee.

  • Odinfin (Pty) Ltd v Reynecke(906/2016) [2017] ZASCA 115 (21 September 2017)
    Applies

    The court applied the principle that a failure of administrative justice does not automatically equate to wrongfulness in a delictual sense, and considered…

  • Overstrand Municipality v Water and Sanitation Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd(143/2017) [2018] ZASCA 50 (29 March 2018)
    Follows

    Court applies the authority that evaluation and award of a tender constitutes an administrative action.

  • Pan African Mineral Development Company (Pty) Ltd & others v Aquila Steel (S Africa) (Pty) Ltd(179/2017) [2017] ZASCA 165 (29 November 2017)
    Cites

    Cited (in the dissenting judgment) for the principle that administrative unlawfulness cannot be remediless in a constitutional state.

  • Provincial Commissioner, Gauteng South African Police Service v Mnguni(890/11) [2013] ZASCA 2 (22 February 2013)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the classification of acts as judicial or quasi-judicial is a flawed exercise.

  • Saamwerk Soutwerke (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mineral Resources(1098/2015) [2017] ZASCA 56
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that wrongfulness in pure economic loss depends on considerations of public and legal policy; public law wrongs ordinarily attract…

  • Sekoko Mametja Incorporated Attorneys v Fetakgomo Tubatse Local Municipality(60/2021) [2022] ZASCA 28 (18 March 2022)
    Cites

    Court cites Steenkamp for the principle that remedies for breach of administrative justice must be just and equitable, and must fit the injury, noting that…

  • Shabangu v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa and Others[2019] ZACC 42
    Cites

    Cited to support the principle that the public/private divide is often more apparent than real.

  • State Information Technology Agency SOC Limited v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd(641/2015) [2016] ZASCA 143
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that a decision by a state entity to award a contract for services constitutes administrative action in terms of s 1 of PAJA.

  • Tetra Mobile Radio (Pty) Limited v The Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Works and Others(482/2006) [2007] ZASCA 128
    Cites

    Cited at paragraphs 20 and 21 for the proposition that fairness, transparency and other requirements permeate the procedure for awarding or refusing tenders.

  • The Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited v Trencon Construction (Pty) Limited(642/2013) [2014] ZASCA 163 (1 October 2014)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that evaluation of state procurement must start with s 217 of the Constitution and for guidance on just and equitable remedies under…

  • The Minister of Police v Vongani Sharon Mboweni and Rudzani Lolla Makatu(657/2013) [2014] ZASCA 107 (5 September 2014)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the existence of a legal duty to prevent loss requires a value judgment embracing all relevant facts and societal convictions…

  • The Trustees of the Simcha Trust v Madeleine de Jong and Others(20001/2014) [2015] ZASCA 45 (26 March 2015)
    Applies

    The SCA applied Steenkamp to support the proposition that courts have been slow to impose delictual liability on public bodies for negligent but honest…

  • Thubakgale and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others[2021] ZACC 45
    Cites

    This Court held that the remedy must fit the injury and be fair, effective, suitable, and just.

  • TMT Services & Supplies (Pty) Ltd t/a Traffic Management Technologies v MEC: Department of Transport, Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(1059/2020) [2022] ZASCA 27 (15 March 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that a decision to award a tender is an administrative action as defined in PAJA.

  • Trustees for the Time Being of the Biowatch Trust v Registrar, Genetic Resources and Others[2009] ZACC 14
    Cites

    Court cites Steenkamp as example of application of the general rule on costs in constitutional litigation.

  • Venator Africa (Pty) Ltd v Watts and Another(053/2023) [2024] ZASCA 60 (24 April 2024)
    Cites

    The court referred to Steenkamp for the question of whether contraventions permit a right of action in the context of interpreting s 218(2).

  • Westinghouse Electric Belgium Société Anonyme v Eskom Holdings (SOC) Ltd(476/2015) [2015] ZASCA 208 (9 December 2015)
    Follows

    Applied to support the principle that strict compliance with tender procedures by both bidders and adjudicators is of central importance in public procurement…

  • Zeal Health Innovations (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Another(967/2023) [2024] ZASCA 183 (27 December 2024)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the remedy must fit the injury and must be just and equitable in the light of the facts, the implicated constitutional…

  • Explore More Cases

    More Constitutional Law cases

    • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
    • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The StateSC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    • Aaron Musiteyi v The StateHMT 2-21, B 09/21
    • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
    • AB and Another v Minister of Social Development[2016] ZACC 43
    • AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others[2020] ZACC 12

    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