IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
CASE NO: 2024 -148777
In the matter between:
RAMM SYSTEMS (PTY) LIMITED Applicant
And
CITY OF CAPE TOWN First Respondent
CITY MANAGER, CITY OF CAPE TOWN Second Respondent
CHAIRPERSON, SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT BID
ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE, CITY OF CAPE TOWN Third Respondent
CTRACK FLEET MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS (PTY)
LIMITED Fourth Respondent
RIAANA SAYED N.O. Fifth Respondent
Judgment : Delivered on 27 June 2025
(Electronically delivered to parties)
Le Grange, J
Introduction:
[1] The genesis of this matter arose out of a tender for the supply and delivery of
vehicle technology for the First Respondent (the City). The Bid Adjudication Committee
(BAC) of the City, acting under delegated authority, decided in Oct ober 2 024 to award
the tender to the Fourth Respondent (Ctrack) . The A pplicant , (RAMM ) was an
unsuccessful bidder . Aggrieved by the award, RAMM submitted a document on 7
November 2024 titled “Objection to award of tender 136S/2023 /24 supply and delivery
of vehicle tracking and recovery ” against the City’s decision . The City Manager
considered the document as an objection as envisage by regulations 49 -50 of the
MSCM Regulations1 (the Regulations) . The independent person appointed under
Regulation 50 declined to consider RAMM’s objection as it was submitted late. In terms
of the Regulation s objections are due 14 days after a decision to award a tender.
RAMM submitted its document 20 days after the City ’s decision.
The Dispute:
[2] RAMM contends, the document properly construed is an appeal and ought to
have been dealt with as such under in s 62 of the Systems Act2. According to the City,
supported by the Fourth Respondent, (Ctrack), RAMM’s document was properly
considered as an objection and correctly dismissed. At the heart of the dispute is the
meaning to be attributed to the document .
Legal Framework :
1 Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations, promulgated under GN, GG 27636 dated 1 June
2005 as amended.
2 Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000.
[3] It is trite that the Constitution3 requires organs of state in all spheres of
government, including the City, to contract for goods and services in accordance with a
scheme that is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective. In that
sche me, established rules must be consistently applied and adhered to bring about
legitimate contracts for goods and services that are fair, equitable, transparent,
competitive and cost effective. In the case of the City , the applicable constitutional,
statutory and policy framework comprises inter alia : the MFMA4 and the relevant
regulations thereunder, Municipal S upply Chain Management (MSCM) Regulations5;
section 62 of the Systems Act; and the relevant organ of state’s S upply Chain
Management (SCM) policy, which in the City’s case is the policy approved by the
Municipal Council on 27 March 2008 and last amended by the Municipal Council on 5
December 2024 . Two separate and distinct forms of dispute resolutions are located in
the applicable scheme . The f irst, is by way of objections, complaints and queries . The
second, is the right of appeal in terms of s 62 of the Systems Act .
[4] The Tender Document in this instance made provision for both and differentiated
between objections and appeals. The heading of Clause 2.1.6 read as follows:
‘Objections, complaints, queries and disputes/ Appeals in terms of s 62 of the Systems
Act/ Access to court. ’ In clause 2.1.6.1, the Tender Document informed t enderers of
regulations 49 and 50 and that they may lodge an object ion in writing within 14 days if
aggrieved by any action or decision taken by the City in the implementation of its supply
chain management system . In clause 2.1.6.2, the Tender Document provide s for an
appeal by referring to section 62 of the Systems Act . In addition, clause 2.1.6.7
prescribes a fee in the amount of R300.00 when submitting an appeal.
[5] Objections , under regulations 49 and 50, have five relevant features . First, it
must be lodged within 14 days6. Secondly, independent and impartial persons who are
not directly involved in the municipality’s supply chain management must deal with
3 section 217(1)
4 Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act, 32 of 2000
5 Published under General Notice 868 in Government Gazette 27636 of 30 May 2005 (as amended).
6 Regulation 49 of the Regulations. Section 419 of the Policy.
objections.7 Thirdly, the independent and impartial person appoint ed to resolve
objections does not have the power to correct or set aside the decision of a municipality.
Its main purpose is to mediate or conciliate a dispute between the party and the
municipality.8 Fourthly, if an objection remains unresolved after 60 days, or if the
independent person cannot resolve the objection, then the objection escalates to the
provincial treasury. If the provincial treasury cannot resolve the objection, then the
objection escalates to the national treasury.9 And lastly, the fil ing of an objection under
regulation 49 and 50 does not constitute an internal remedy under section 7(2) of
PAJA.10
[6] On the other hand, section 62 of the Systems Act, read with the City’s SCM
Policy, governs the submission of an appeal. That section in relevant part s, reads as
follows:
62. Appeals. —
(1) A person whose rights are affected by a decision taken by a political
structure, political office bearer, councillor or staff member of a
municipality in terms of a power or duty delegated or sub -delegated by a
delegating authority to the political structure, political office bearer,
councillor or staff member, may appeal against that decision by giving
written notice of the appeal and reasons to the municipal manager within
21 days of the d ate of the notification of the decision.
(2) The municipal manager must promptly submit the appeal to the
appropriate appeal authority mentioned in subsection (4).
7 These persons are appointed by the accounting officer of the municipality. The appointed person must
(i) strive to resolve promptly all objections received; and (ii) submit monthly reports t o the accounting
officer on all objections received, attended to, or resolved. Regulation 50(1) to (4) of the Regulations.
Sections 420 to 422 of the Policy.
8 Esda Properties (Pty) Ltd v Amathole District Municipality 2014 JDR 1878 (ECG) para 11, endorsed in
DDP Valuers v Madibeng Local Municipality 2015 JDR 2093 (SCA) para 21.
9 Regulation 50(5) and (6) of the Regulations. Sections 423 and 424 of the Policy.
10 DDP Valuers ibid at para 22.
(3) The appeal authority must consider the appeal, and confirm, vary or
revoke the decision, but no such variation or revocation of a decision may
detract from any rights that may have accrued as a result of the decision.
…”
[7] Appeals have thus four key features: First, it must be lodged within 21 days;
appeals pertain only ‘to the limited issue of whether the party appealing should have
been successful ’11 as appeal authorities, under the Systems Act, do not have the power
to make any just and equitable order12. Secondly, an appeal may only seek a
confirmation, variation, or revocation of the decision against which the appeal is
lodged13. Thirdly, an appea l cannot detract from any rights that may have accrued
because of the impugned decision.14 And, fourthly, an appeal constitutes an internal
remedy under section 7(2) of the Promotion of Access to Justice Act (PAJA )15.
Background :
11 Groenewald NO v M5 Development (Cape) Pty Limited 2019 (4) SA 331 CC at para 25.
12 Astral Operations Ltd t/a Country Fair Foods v The Minister for Local Government, Environmental
Affairs and Development Planning (Western Cape) 2023 (2) SA 102 (SCA) para 52: “ The appeal authority
has limited powers under s 62 of the Systems Act. It is for this reason that this Court found
in Groenewald that ‘ [i]n the context of a municipal tender, an appeal by a person whose tender was
unsuccessful therefore does not entitle th e appeal authority to reconsider all the tenders that were
lodged ’. An appeal authority under s 35 of the ECA has wider powers including the additional power to
‘make such order as he may deem fit’. The challenges which faced the appeal authority
in Groene wald are absent in this matter.”
13 Section 62(3): “The appeal authority must consider the appeal, and confirm, vary or revoke the
decision”.
14 Section 62(3): “no such variation or revocation of a decision may detract from any rights that may have
accrued a s a result of the decision.”
15 Act, 32 of 2000 - Section 7(2) reads:
“(a) Subject to paragraph (c), no court or tribunal shall review an administrative action in
terms of this Act unless any internal remedy provided for in any other law has first been
exhausted.
(b) Subject to paragraph (c), a court or tribunal must, if it is not satisfied that any internal
remedy referred to in paragraph (a) has been exhausted, direct that the person
concerned must first exhaust such remedy before instituting proceedings in a court or
tribunal for judicial review in terms of this Act.
(c) A court or tribunal may, in exceptional circumstances and on application by the person
concerned, exempt such person from the obligation to exhaust any internal remedy if the
court or tribunal deems it in the interest of justice.”
[8] Turning to the background facts underpin ning this matter . On 7 October 2024,
the BAC awarded the tender to Ctrack, subject to the finalisation of the appeal process
under s 62 of the Systems Act and or finalisation of the process under section 33 of the
MFMA.
[9] RAMM was notified on 18 October 2024, that its bid was unsuccessful. On the
same day R AMM’s nationa l sales manager , Christine Welha m, (Ms Welham) wrote to
the City, recording that RAMM is considering appealing the award and requested a copy
of the BEC report . The City provided th e report the same day.
[10] Ms Welham, o n 21 October 2024 , wrote to the City seeking clarification regarding
the cl osing date for objections . On 23 October 2024, Welham addressed another letter
to the City, under the heading ‘Re: Urgent Clarification of Objection Closing Date And
Request for BEC Report Details for Tender 136S/2023/2024 - Supply and Delivery of
Vehicle Tracking and Recovery.’ In th at letter , RAMM recorded the City ’s failure to
inform them about their right to object to the award and wanted to enquire the exact
deadline for submissions of any objections should they elect to pursue that avenue.
RAMM also sought an unredacted version of t he BEC report of the Eva luation of Tender
Adjudication Points and Evaluation rates. According to RAMM, that information was
crucial to understand the basis upon which their bid failed . According to RAMM an
unredacted version would ensure transparency which would be of assistance, improvi ng
the quality of future submissions by them.
[11] The City on 25 October 2024, responded by informing RAMM about the appeals
process in ter ms of s 62 of the Systems Act, which was part of clause 2.1.6.2 of the
tender conditions. It also provided information regarding the Evaluation of Tender
Adjudication Points and Evaluation rates.
[12] On 1 November 2024, under the heading Re: Clarification of Objection Deadline
And Request for BEC Meeting Minutes - Tender 136S/2023/2024 - Supply and Delivery
of Vehicle Tracking and Recovery’ RAMM sought confirmation from the City th at the
deadline date for submitting appeals against the award wi ll be on 8 November 2024.
The City did not respond to the letter.
[13] RAMM on 7 November 2024, submitted a 16 page s submission with the title;
Objection to A ward of Tender 136S/2023/2024 - Supply and Delivery of Vehicle Tracking
and Recovery .’ In the body of the submission at paragraph 3 , RAMM complained about
the short time they had to s ubmit the objection within the 21day period and requested
condon ation if any further submissions were to be submitted . In paragraph 4 the
following was record ed, ‘RAMM is object ing to the Adjudicat ion and Award of the tender
on the basis that the City failed to comply with the Preferential Procurement Policy
Framework Act, National Treasury ’s Procedures and the City’s Supply Chain Policy. ’
[14] According to RAMM the tender was fundamentally flawed and requested that the
tender be cancelled and readvertised to enable a more transparent and lawful outcome.
[15] On 8 November 2024, the City’s legal advisor informed RAMM it is in receipt of
its objection and the matter is receiving attention. On 18 November 2024, RAMM was
informed , the Independent Person appointed in terms of Regulation 50 of the MSCM
declined to consider its objection as it was no t lodged within the prescribed 14-day
period.
[16] Aggrieved by this outcome , RAMM wrote to the City disputing that its letter
should have been regarded as an objection . RAMM heavily relied on the City’s
response dated 25 October and its letter of 1 November 2024 to contend that its letter of
objection was always meant to be an appeal and was incorrectly characterized by the
City as an objection.
Argument:
[17] The main submissions by RAMM ’s counsel can be summarised a follow : the
Welham ’s are layperson s in law and used the words objection and appeal
interchangeably without understanding the material difference between the two
procedures ; In view of the correspondence between RAMM and the City the only
mechanism that was available to RAMM was to challenge the BAC’s decision by
lodging an appeal in terms of s 62 of the Systems Act . It was further argued that the City
in its own correspondence, understood RAMM was going to lodge an appeal .
Furthermore, on a purp osive interpretation the objection letter by RAMM in substance
could only be interpreted as an appeal as it was rights based.
[18] Counsel for the City and Ctrack argued different ly. They contented the text used ,
the context in which it appeared and the purpose of RAMM’s document holistically
consider ed do not support the argument that it was mischaracterized as an objection.
According to Counsel for the City, RAMM’s attempt to import meanings to the document
to align with its purported intention is unsustainable. Counsel for Ctrack submitted that
on any reasonable interpretation , RAMM’s document constituted an objection as it was
expressly recorded as such . Furthermore, the word ‘objection ’ was used multiple times,
and the word ‘appeal ’ was not once used in the document. It was also contented that
RAMM is not unfamiliar with tender litigation and reference was made to a matter where
RAMM was a respondent and an applicant in a counter -applica tion with the City16. It
was further argued that it is implausible RAMM’s representatives did not appreciate the
difference between an appeal or an objection, and if they did then they could not have
intended for the d ocument to be an appeal.
Interpretation:
[19] The interpretation of written documents is trite17. It demands that a court consider
the language used, the context in which it was used and the purpose of the provision.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) restated these principles in Capitec Bank Holding
16 City of Cape Town v RAMM Systems (PTY) LTD and another Case No. 11437/2022 delivered on 10
August 2023
17 Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA)
Limited v Carol Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd18, emphasising that the starting point
is the language of the document itself, and continued as follows:
‘….the triad of text, context and purpose should not be used in a mechanical
fashion. It is the relationship between the words used, the concepts expressed by
those words and the place of the contested provision within the scheme of the
agreement (or instrument) as a whole that constitutes the enterprise by recourse
to which a coherent and salient interpretation is determined.
…..Endumeni is not a charter for judicial constructs premised upon what a
contract should be taken to mean from a vantage point that is no t located in the
text of what the parties in fact agreed. Nor does Endumeni licence judicial
interpretation that imports meanings into a contract so as to make it a better
contract, or one that is ethically preferable. ”
Discussion:
[20] With the abovement ioned stated principles , the question now is whether the
document submitted by RAMM, is in substance an appeal as envisage d by the Systems
Act.
[21] The starting point must be the 16-page document submitted by RAMM . In its
founding papers RAMM alleges the document was drafted by its director, Lindsay
Welham , and assisted by its sales manager Ms. Christene Welham . According to
Welham’s , they did not understand , as lay people in law, the material difference
between the words ‘objection and ‘appeal’ . I will re turn to this issue later.
[22] The document’s title reads , “Objection to Award of Tender 136S/2023/2024 -
Supply and Delivery of Vehicle Tracking and Recovery . In paragraph 1 , the City was
notified by RAMM that the letter is the comp any’s formal notification of its ‘objecting to
the award of Tender 136S/2023/24. ’ Paragraph 2 dealt with the request that RAMM be
18 2022 (1) SA 392 (SCA) at para 43.
provided for an unredacted BAC report . In Paragraph 3, RAMM request ed condon ation
for further submissions as the BAC report w as 77 pages long and ‘in order to submit this
objection within the 21-day period ’ was not able to unpack all the submission s. In
paragraphs 4 , RAMM recorded that the City has a statutory obligation to ensure that the
award was lawful rational and procedurally fair. It further recorded that ‘RAMM is
objecting to the Adjudication and Award of the tender on the basis that the City failed to
comply with the Preferential Policy Framework Act, National Treasury ’s Procedures and
the City’s Supply Chain Policy.’
[23] Paragraph s 5 to 21 dealt with the City’s apparent failure to comply with the
prescribed regulations . In Paragraph 21.1 , a submission was made that the Tender was
fundamentally flawed and consequently its adjudication did not comply with the
prescribed regulations, policies, and procedures.
[24] Paragraphs 22 to 69 dealt with the ostensible failure by the City to adjudicate the
tender based on quality, reliability, viability and durability. In the conclu ding paragraphs
70 and 71, RAMM recorded inter alia the following ‘… These procedural breaches not
only violate the tender conditions but also introduce significant risk to the legitimacy of
the award’…. Given these substantive issues it is clear that the tender process has not
adhered to the necessary legal and procedural requirements….. and it is justified to
request the cancellation of Tender 136S/2023/24’ .
[25] On a plain reading of the document it is evident that the scribes had knowledge
and a deep understanding of the tender process . The word ‘objection was repeatedly
used in the document. Besides the reference to the 21 -day period in clause 3 , the
document itself offers no indication that RAMM was filing an appeal as envisage d by the
Systems Act. The title of the document points squarely in the direction that RAMM
elected to file an ‘Objection to Award of Tender’ . The clauses19 attack ing the City’s
apparent failure to comply with prescribed regulations, policies , procedures and to
properly adjudicate RAMM’s bid , do not speak exclusively to the requirements of an
19 Clauses 1 -69
appeal . The same applies to the final two paragraphs . A tender cannot be cancelled on
appeal. It can only be confirmed, varied, or revoked.20 Yet, RAMM requested that the
Tender be cancelled. Viewed in context the clauses do not advance a construct that the
document is plainly an appeal in substance.
[26] RAMM ’s contention that the challenge against the lawfulness of the award
cannot properly be addressed under Regulations 49 and 50 and the City appreciated
that fact, is unsustainable. An objection can never be regarded as futile. It can initiate a
speedy dispute resolution process between the objecto r and the City. This mediation
may result in the BAC exercising its power to cancel the entire tender as demanded by
RAMM21. To suggest the City all along knew and appreciated RAMM submitted an
appeal is also unconvincing. In its letter dated 23 October, RAMM requested an
unredacted version of the BEC report to supposedly improve the quality of future
submissions . This correspondence can hardly be regarded as a ‘plain understanding’ of
RAMM’s intention to submit an appeal. It is correct that in correspondence RAMM used
the word ‘appeal’ twice, but it also used the word 'objection’ seven times. RAMM
admitted it used the words interchangeably but that is of no help to its case. The
correspondence in context is at best vague , the document on a proper reading not.
[27] Moreover, the appeal process is not unknown to RAMM . Since August 2023
RAMM must have been aware what a s 62 of the Systems Act appeal entails. In that
year RAMM was the first respondent in a matter where the City, as applicant, sought to
self-review a tender that was awarded to RAMM22. The City duly informed RAMM at the
time that an appeal had been lodged against the award23. The court found the award
was invalid and unl awful as RAMM endeavored to vary the tender specifications,
unbeknown to the BAC, by incorporating its compliance statement in the agreement to
secure the tender for itself on terms most favourably to it.
20 Section 62(3): “The appeal authority must consider the appeal, and confirm, vary or revoke the
decision”.
21 See s 280 of the City’s Policy empowers the BAC to cancel a tender in limited circumstances,
22 City of Cape Town v RAMM Systems (PTY) LTD and another Case No. 11437/2022 delivered on 10
August 2023.
23 Ibid, para 16.
[28] Objection s under regulations 49 and 50, are also not foreign to RAMM . In
warranti ng it examined and accepted all the conditions of the tender24 RAMM knew or
ought to have known the distinct differences between objection s and appeal s. The City
has thus no obligation to alert or enquire from a bidder whether its submission is an
objection or an appeal . That Responsibility, i n terms of the Tender, falls squarely on an
aggrieved bidder who elects to challenge an award. However, despite the City ’s
reference to an appeal in terms of the System’s Act, RAMM persisted in referring to its
document as an objectio n. The City accepted it as such and on 8 November 2024
informed RAMM , its legal advisor is attending to the objection . The City was therefore
clear ly dealing with an objection . RAM M did not take issue with the City’s letter . It will be
most unfair to other bidders and cont rary to PMFA , National Treasury Procedures and
the City’s Supply Chain Policy to expect the City to import meaning to document s from
email correspondence . Such an approach will not only undermine established rules that
needs to be consistently applied to bring about legitimate contracts that are fair,
equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective , but will also be contrary to the
established process of interpr etation which is objective and not a subjective matter25.
Put differently, read holistically, the correspondence relied upon by RAMM did not
import the characteristics of an appeal into the document . The City was therefore legally
oblig ed to consider the document as an objection .
[29] Turning to RAMM’s contention its representative s are layperson s in the law and
did not appreciate the difference between objections an d appeals . This contention is
misplaced. RAMM is a sophisticated commercial entity and not a novice in the world of
tendering . It has previously litigated in tender matters.26 In the founding affidavit the
director of RAMM admitted Ms Welham assisted in complet ing the document . The
director and sales manager are not your ordinary persons in a company. These are
senior positions . Mr. Welham signed the Form of Offer and Acceptance and knew or
24 Clause 2.2.21 Claims arising from sub mission of tender
The Tenderer warrants that it has:
(a) Inspect the Specifications and read and fully understood the Conditions of the Contract.
25 Endumeni supra at para 23.
26 See City of Cape Town v RAMM System , supra
ought to have known the distin ct difference between appeals and objection s. Moreover,
the objection referenced numerous pieces of legislation , legal principles, including
PAJA , showing that the Welham ’s has a deep understanding of the inner workings of
tendering. Ms Welham ’s response to the City’s rejection letter is a further indication that
she is not ignorant or clueless regarding the difference between appeals and objections .
To now claim they did not understand and appreciate the difference between the words
‘objection ’ an ‘appeal ’ is simply untenable as the material known to them at the time of
producing the submissions paints a different picture.
[30] In view of the all the above -mentioned reasons , the language used in the
document, the meaning in the context in which it was used and having regard to the
purpose o f the provisions of objections and appeals the only coherent and salient
interpretation is that RAMM’s 16 -page document was an objection . RAMM used the
wrong time periods, and its objection was out of time and late.
[31] In terms of regulation 49 and 50, the independent and impartial person correctly
adjudicated that the mechanism exercised by RAMM was indeed an objection and filed
out of time.
[32] It follows the relief sought by RAMM, in its Amended Notice of Motion cannot
succeed.
[33] In the result the following order made.
1. The Application is dismissed with costs .
2. The Applicant to pay the costs of the First to Fourth respondents , including
the costs of two counsel where so employed on Scale C.
____________________
LE G RANGE, J
Appearances :
Applicant: Adv. D Bor gstrom , SC assisted by Adv. L Fer reira
Instructed by : Maurice Phillips Wisenber g Attorneys
First, Second and Third
Respondents: Adv. T Sarkas
Instructed by Cluver Markotter Attorneys
Fourth Respondent Adv. R Patrick , SC assisted by Adv. E Cohen
Instructed by Gio Engelbrecht Attor neys