![]() Gijima argued that there is no reason to exempt organs of state from the applicability of PAJA. It contended that the review should be decided in terms of the principle of legality, and not in terms of PAJA. In the Constitutional Court, SITA argued that when an organ of state seeks to review and set aside its own conduct, it does so on the basis that its conduct is inconsistent with the Constitution. The majority concluded that PAJA applies to review applications instituted by organs of state and dismissed the appeal with costs, because the application was brought after the expiry of the 180-day period. In the Supreme Court of Appeal, the majority agreed with the High Court that a decision to award a contract for services constitutes administrative action in terms of PAJA. The Court concluded that it would not be just and equitable to set aside the main agreement and dismissed the application with costs. This meant that, unless the Court –acting in terms of the provisions of PAJA – sanctioned the late application, the application could not be entertained. The Court held that PAJA applied, because a decision to award and renew the DoD services agreement qualifies as administrative action as defined in PAJA. It instituted these proceedings outside of the 180-day period within which a review of administrative action must be brought in terms of PAJA. In the High Court, SITA brought an application to set aside the DoD agreement on the same basis. The arbitrator ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to determine this constitutional challenge. This dispute went to arbitration, in the course of which SITA pleaded that the DoD agreement was concluded in contravention of section 217 of the Constitution. ![]() The agreement concerning these services was extended several times, but a payment dispute subsequently arose between the parties. Gijima accordingly rendered IT services to the Department of Defence. Gijima raised its concerns about the lawfulness of the DoD agreement with SITA, but on more than one occasion SITA assured Gijima that the agreement complied with procurement prescripts. On 6 February 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in terms of which Gijima would render IT services to the Department of Defence (DoD agreement).The settlement agreement also provided that SITA would compensate Gijima for losses which arose from the termination of the SAPS agreement. In response, Gijima instituted urgent proceedings in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria (High Court). That agreement was subsequently terminated by SITA, which resulted in a loss of R20 million in future revenue for Gijima. On 27 September 2006, the State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd (SITA) and Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd (Gijima) entered into an agreement in terms of which Gijima was to provide information technology services (IT services) to the South African Police Service (SAPS agreement). On 14 November 2017 at 10h00, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in an application for leave to appeal in a matter concerning whether an organ of state can seek to have its own decision reviewed and set aside in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |