RHI Joint Venture v The Minister of Roads and Public Works, Eastern Cape and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Ebrahim, J
• Judgment Date: 26 May 2003
• Docket Number: 769/02
• Court: Ciskei High Court
• Hearing Date: 26 May 2003
• Citation: 2003 JDR 0375 (CkH)

Ebrahim J:

1.

This is an application for leave to appeal in which the third respondent, who was one of the unsuccessful parties in the main application, seeks leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment of this Court, delivered

2003 JDR 0375 p2

Ebrahim J

on 18 March 2003. For the sake of convenience I shall refer to the parties as they were cited in the main proceedings. The application, which was opposed by the applicant, was argued on 6 May 2003 and dismissed with costs. In view of the urgency of the matter the Court rendered its decision immediately. without furnishing reasons, and undertook to hand down the reasons by not later than 31 May 2003. These now follow.

2.

In the Notice of Application the third respondent has stated that leave to appeal is being sought against the whole of the judgment of this Court. However, this is not substantiated by the grounds of appeal enumerated therein. It is evident from these grounds that the application is directed at only a part of the Court's judgment. In addition, it is confined to the issue of the calculation of the points that were awarded to the tender of the third respondent.

3.

Mr van Rooyen, who appeared for the third respondent at the stage when the leave to appeal was argued, was asked by the Court to clarify the position. He confirmed that the Court's decision to set aside the decision of the Tender Board, and consequently prayer (a) of the Court's order, was not being challenged by the third respondent. In effect, therefore, and contrary to the wording in the notice, the third respondent was seeking leave to appeal only paragraph (b) of the Court's order, and that part of paragraph (c) that operated against the third respondent in respect of costs.

2003 JDR 0375 p3

Ebrahim J

4.

The primary question which is to be considered in an application of this nature is whether there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. See van Heerden v Cronwight and Others 1985 (2) SA 342 (T) at 343C.G. I turn now to consider this.

5.

Mr van Rooyen submitted that both the third respondent and the applicant disputed the correctness of the points that had been awarded to them in respect of their tenders. It is so that in the main application the applicant asserted that the Standing Tender Committee should have awarded it's tender higher points in respect of two aspects, namely, the extent to which 'the tendered Contract Participation Goal' and 'the tendered Contract...