Kingsley Tochi Udeh


This article examines the extent to which an unsuccessful bidder is afforded a viable appeal remedy under section 62 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act No 32 of 2000, following the decision of the High Court in Loghdey v City of Cape Town (100/09) [2010] ZAWCHC 25. Until this case held to the contrary, it was taken for granted that the section generally accorded unsuccessful bidders the right to internal appeal against the award decision of a municipality’s delegated authority. Although a later decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal in CC Groenewald v M5 Developments (Pty) Ltd [2010] ZASCA 47 para 21,  held that section 62 appeal is available to unsuccessful tenderers, it seemingly did not settle the issue; as it has been suggested that the two cases are distinguishable. Besides, consistent judicial interpretation of section 62(3) has further cast doubt on the viability of bidder remedies under the section.

It is argued here that the decision in Loghdey is flawed; and has been effectively overruled in CC Groenewald. Thus, section 62 definitely affords internal appeal rights to unsuccessful bidders against award decisions of municipalities’ delegated authority. Furthermore, reasons are presented to urge the court to reconsider and depart from its current interpretation of section 62(3) that limits the viability of bidder remedy under section 62.


Public Procurement, remedies, interpretation, South Africa

Full Text:




Baxter, L. 1984. Administrative Law. Cape Town: Juta.

Bennion, F. 1990. Bennion on Statute Law. London: Longman.

Blackstone, W. 1765. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bolton, P. 2007. The Law of Government Procurement in South Africa. Durban: LexisNexis.

Kim, Y. 2008. Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends. Washington: Congressional Research Service.

Quinot, G. 2011. Enforcement of Procurement Law from a South African Perspective. Public Procurement Law Review 20:193–206.

Quinot, G. 2013. A Comparative Perspective on Supplier Remedies in African Public Procurement Systems. In Quinot, G. & Arrowsmith, S. (Eds.). Public Procurement Regulation in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Volmink, P. 2014. Legal Consequences of Non Compliance with Bid Requirements. Afrcan Public Procurement Law Journal 1:41-60.

Wade, H.W.R & Forsyth, C.E. 2014. Administrative Law. 11 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Abbott v The Minister for Lands [1895] AC 425 (PC).

Actaris South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Chairman of the Tender Committee [2007] ZAFSHC 136.

Actaris South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Sol Platjie Municipality [2008] ZANCHC 6; [2008] 4 All SA 168 (NC).

Alexander Maintance and Electrical Services CC v Nyandeni Local Municipality [2012] ZAECMHC 10.

Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency NO 2014 (1) BCLR 1 (CC).

Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape [2015] ZASCA 209; [2016] 1 All SA 313 (SCA); 2016 (2) SA 199 (SCA).

Botha v Rich N.O [2014] ZACC 11, 2014 (4) SA 124 (CC).

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality v Asla Construction (Pty) [2016] ZAECGHC 55.

CC Groenewald v M5 Developments (Pty) Ltd [2010] ZASCA 47.

Chairperson - Standing Tender committee v JFE Sapela Electronics [2005] 4 ALL SA 487 (SCA).

Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency NO v Cash Paymaster Services (Pty) Ltd [2011] ZASCA 13; 2012 (1) SA 216 (SCA).

City of Cape Town v South African National Roads Agency Ltd [2015] ZAWCHC 135, 2016 (1) BCLR 49 (WCC); [2016] 1 All SA 99 (WCC); 2015 (6) SA 535 (WCC).

Compass Waste Services (Pty) Ltd v Chairperson Northern Cape Tender Board [2005] ZANCHC 4; [2005] 4 All SA 425 (NC).

DDP Valuers (Pty) Ltd v Madibeng Local Municipality [2015] ZASCA 146.

Evaluations Enhanced Property Appraisals (Pty) Ltd v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality [2014] ZAECGHC 55; [2014] 3 All SA 560 (ECG).

Jicama 17 (Pty) Ltd v West Coast District Municipality 2006 (1) SA 116 (C).

Koyabe v Minister for Home Affairs 2009 (2) BCLR 1192 (CC).

Loghdey v Advanced Parking Solutions CC 2009 (5) SA 595 (C).

Loghdey v City of Cape Town (100/09) [2010] ZAWCHC 25.

Lohan Civil-Tebogo Joint Venture v Mangaung Plaaslike Munisipaliteit 508/2009 (O) [2009] ZAFSHC 21 (27 February 2009).

M5 Developments (Cape) (Pty) Ltd v Groenewald NO [2009] JDR 0094 (C).

Mohamed NO v union Government (Minister of Interior) 1911 AD 1 10.

Moseme Road Construction CC & others v King Civil Engineering Contractors (Pty) Ltd [2010] ZASCA 13.

Municipality of the City of Cape Town v Reader [2008] ZASCA 130; 2009 (1) SA 555 (SCA).

Reader v Ikin 2008 (2) SA 582 (C).

Rex v Cotterill (1817) 1 B & Ald 81.

Sanyathi Civil Engineering & Construction (Pty) Ltd v eThekwini Municipality, Group Five Contruction (Pty) Ltd v eThekwini Municipality [2011] ZAKZPHC 45; 2012 (1) BCLR 45 (KZP); [2012] 1 All SA 200 (KZP).

Sebeza Kahle Trade v Emalahleni Local Municipal Council [2003] 2 All SA 340 (T) 348.

South African Municipal Workers Union v City of Cape Town [2005] ZAWCHC 39.

South African Police Service v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union [2011] ZACC 21; 2011 (6) SA 1 (CC); 2011 (9) BCLR 992 (CC).

South African Police Service v Public Servants Association [2006] ZACC 18; 2007 (3) SA 521 (CC).

South African Post Office v De Lacy 2009 (5) SA 255 (SCA).

Syntell (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town [2008] ZAWCHC 120.

The Beta (1865) 3 Moo PCC NS 23 25.

Total Computer Services (Pty) Ltd v Municipal Manager, Potchefstroom Local Municipality 2008 (4) SA 346 (T).

LEGISLATION (South Africa)

Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act 56 of 2003

Local Government: Municipal Systems Act No 32 of 2000

Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations GN 868 in GG 27636 of 30-5-2005

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No 96 of 2000

Supply Chain Management Policy 2013 (City of Cape Town)

Uniform Rules of Court 2009



  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN 2411-7048 (online)

Powered by OJS and hosted by since 2014.


This journal is hosted by the SU LIS on request of the journal owner/editor. The SU LIS takes no responsibility for the content published within this journal, and disclaim all liability arising out of the use of or inability to use the information contained herein. We assume no responsibility, and shall not be liable for any breaches of agreement with other publishers/hosts.

SUNJournals Help