About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAWCHC 505
|
|
Rajana v S (A307/10) [2010] ZAWCHC 505 (22 October 2010)
JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE HIGH
COURT, CAPE TOWN)
CASE
NUMBER
:
22164/2010
DATE
:
23
AUGUST 2010
In the matter between:
LOGIVEST
35 (PTY) LIMITED
…......................................................
Applicant
and
THE
CHAIRPERSON OF THE BID ADJUDICATION
COMMITTEE
OF THE BITOU MUNICIPALITY
AND
OTHERS
….........................................................................
Respondents
JUDGMENT
Application for Leave
to Appeal
VELDHUIZEN,
J
:
Whilst on circuit in the
Eastern Circuit Local Division, sitting at George, I heard an
application by the applicant, Logivest 35
(Pty) Limited, praying that
a bid which was awarded to one of the respondents by the second
respondent, be set aside and that the
bid be awarded to the
applicant.
After considering the
matter I granted an order reviewing and setting aside the decision of
the first respondent taken on 27 October
2010 to award the tender for
the leasing of the municipal property known as Lookout Deck
Restaurant, Plettenberg Bay, to the third
respondent and I made a
costs order following that. The effect of the order is that the
second respondent again had to call for
tenders and would be obliged
to follow the procedures contained in its policy document.
Today there is before me
an application for leave to appeal against this order. It is
submitted firstly that the court did not have
the power to
effectively order that the process should be started afresh, that is
the process of calling for tenders for the lease
of the property. It
is also submitted that, on the interpretation which I gave to the
advertisement calling for tenders, I should
in fact have awarded the
tender to the applicant.
In my view there is a
reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different
conclusion to the one which I arrived at and
accordingly the
application for leave to appeal is granted, and leave to appeal is
granted to the applicant to the appeal to the
Full Bench of this
Division. Costs of this application will be costs in the appeal.
VELDHUIZEN, J