First Thing, Daily Maverick's flagship newsletter

Join the 230 000 South Africans who read First Thing newsletter.

A South African Hero: You

There’s a 99.7% chance that this isn’t for you. Only 0.3% of our readers have responded to this call for action.

Those 0.3% of our readers are our hidden heroes, who are fuelling our work and impacting the lives of every South African in doing so. They’re the people who contribute to keep Daily Maverick free for all, including you.

We need so many more of our readers to join them. The equation is quite simple: the more members we have, the more reporting and investigations we can do, and the greater the impact on the country. We are inundated with tip-offs; we know where to look and what to do with the information when we have it – we just need the means to help us keep doing this work.

Be part of that 0.3%. Be a Maverick. Be a Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Eastern Cape court warns government against using ‘sh...

South Africa


Eastern Cape court warns government against using ‘shortcut’ tender processes

Black doctors (or an organisation acting on their behalf) may well approach the Equality Court for a declaration that these schemes are unfairly discriminating against black doctors on the basis of their race.

Eastern Cape High Court Judge Bantubonke Tokota has found that it was illegal for a government department to use a settlement agreement to avoid tender procurement laws.

First published by GroundUp

Government departments that use “shortcut” tender processes by entering into settlement agreements to avoid protracted litigation are doing so illegally. This is according to Eastern Cape High Court Judge Bantubonke Tokota.

In what has been described as a precedent-setting case, Judge Tokota, sitting in the Bisho High Court, declared a R20.7-million tender by the provincial department of rural development and agrarian reform for the supply of fertiliser, to be invalid and unenforceable.

“It is the duty of courts to ensure that organs of state operate within the limits of the law. It is the only way to curb the scourge of corruption,” said Judge Tokota.

The tender came about as a result of a settlement agreement between the department and a tenderer, Siphindile Majojobela. This fell foul of procurement prescripts laid down in the Constitution and the Public Finance Management Act, the judge ruled.

The matter was brought before the court as an urgent application by Majojobela who wanted an order compelling the department to comply with the settlement agreement.

The department put out the tender in May 2017 but subsequently cancelled it. Aggrieved by this, Majojobela went to court and obtained an order reviewing the state’s decision to cancel.

The court directed that the matter be referred back to the bid adjudication committee. In response, the department applied for leave to appeal, which led to a “litigation loggerhead”.

The two parties then signed a settlement agreement in November 2018 which aimed at putting an end to the litigation with Majojebela. He was awarded the contract for three years.

In July 2020, the department cancelled the contract because its budget of R20.7-million for the tender had been exhausted. This triggered Majojebela’s urgent application, claiming the cancellation was unlawful and asking for an order enforcing the settlement agreement.

The department did not initially oppose the application, but the judge raised concerns about the validity of the settlement agreement and asked both sides to submit arguments in this regard. It was only then that the department conceded that “with hindsight” the matter should have been opposed.

“It is clear that the agreement was concluded before the award of any tender was made by the bid adjudication committee.

“It is clear that the purpose of the settlement was twofold: to avert a string of litigation, and to circumvent procurement processes which were in progress,” said the judge.

Judge Tokota said there were benefits to settlement agreements; they brought about swift resolution of disputes and finality, and they relieved the workload of judges.

But notwithstanding this, a court was not relieved of the duty to ensure such orders were lawful “and a court making an agreement an order of court would not do so by the mere say so of the parties”, he said.

He dismissed the application and ordered each party to pay its own costs.



Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

No Comments, yet

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted