= L
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: ¥ES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: ¥ES/NO
(3) REVISED ,
DATE: 29 AUGUST 2025
Case No. 135048/2025
In the matter between:
3F SCIENTIFIC (PTY) LTD APPLICANT
And
NATIONAL HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE 18ST RESPONDENT
SMM INSTRUMENTS (PTY) LTD 2N2 RESPONDENT
Coram: Millar J
Heard on: 26 August 2025
2
Delivered: 29 August 2025 - This judgment was handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties' representatives by email, by being uploaded
to the CaseLines system of the GD and by release to SAFLII. The
date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 11H00 on 29 August
2025.
ORDER
It is Ordered:
[1] The first and second respondents are interdicted from implementing or further
implementing Tender RFP024/23/24: Placement/Outright Purchase of a Digital
Pathology Scanning Solution at National Health Laboratory Services: George
Mukhari Polokwane, Tshwane Academic Division, Charlotte Maxeke
Johannesburg Academic Hospital, Chris Hani Baragwanath, Bloemfontein
(Universitas), Nkosi Albert Lethuli, Matata, East London, Port Elizabeth,
Tygerberg, Groote Schuur Hospital, Greenpoint Complex and Nioh
(Braamfontein), including service and maintenance for a period of 5 years (“the
Tender’).
Pending the final determination of the pending review application under case
number: 2024-149675.
[2] The costs of this application are reserved for determination in the review
application under case number: 2024-149675.
3
——”——”—C«SUDGMENTOO~“‘“‘CS:™S
MILLAR J
{1] The present application was brought by the applicant by way of urgency for an
order interdicting the first and second respondents from proceeding with the
implementation of a tender.
[2] The tender concerned was for the “Purchase and installation of a Digital
Pathology Scanning Solution in fourteen laboratories”. |t was a proverbial two
horse race, and it is the second respondent who won. The applicant, in the
parlance of horseracing, lodged an objection — an application to review and set
aside the tender.
(3] The reasons upon which the applicant asserts the review will succeed are not
germane to this application. This is something to be decided by another court. It
suffices to say that on the allegations made by the applicant alone as to the
irregularities with the award of the tender, these if established would be grounds
for its review and setting aside. This is however not the only issue to be
considered here. The right here is to have the extant review heard and
determined.
[4] The tender was awarded to the second respondent on 24 August 2024 and on
30 August 2024, the applicant informed that it had been unsuccessful. The
applicant launched review proceedings, and these are extant.
[5] It is common cause that when the review proceedings were launched, the tender
had not been implemented. While it was initially launched by way of urgency, this