Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1]            The fourth respondent in the court below (N C South West Brokers CC) (“South West”) was the successful tenderer in respect of a tender put out by the first appellant (who was also the first respondent in the court below) (“the municipality”). The tender was for the provision of water loss insurance for underground water leaks of individual dwelling units which would be available to domestic consumers of water supplied by the municipality. Aggrieved at the award of that tender by the municipality the applicant in the court below (Westwood Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd) (“Westwood”) applied to the court a quo for dual-pronged relief. Firstly, it sought interdictory relief preventing the implementation of the tender and the conclusion of any contract flowing from it, and, while that interdict was in place, secondly, it sought to review and set aside the award of that tender claiming, instead, that the award ought to be made to it.

[2]           The court below (D Pillay J) granted the interdict after hearing argument on 29 September 2016. On the return day on 7 October 2016, after hearing further argument, the learned Judge put in place provisions for the adjudication of the review. This she did by requiring the parties to craft a proposed abbreviated order, truncating the time periods foreshadowed in Rule 53. When that was achieved she made that order in chambers on 10 October 2016 and directed that she would hear the review herself. On the further extended return day the municipality, which was the only party that opposed the application, no longer opposed the challenge to the award of the tender and consented to it being set aside. It (i.e. the municipality) however would not agree to the further relief substituting the applicant in the court a quo for the fourth respondent in the court a quo as the successful tenderer.