Your browser does not support JavaScript! The Case of Steenkamp N.O. v Provincial Tender Board 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC) - Divorce, Family and Commercial Law Attorneys

The Case of Steenkamp N.O. v Provincial Tender Board 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC)

HOME / The Case of Steenkamp N.O. v Provincial Tender Board 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC)

The Case of Steenkamp N.O. v Provincial Tender Board 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC)

The Case of Steenkamp N.O. v Provincial Tender Board 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC)

Brief Facts of The Case

The case of Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board Eastern Cape is crucial in South African law, demonstrating the complicated interface between administrative justice and delictual liability within public procurement.

(The term ‘delictual liability’ originates from a legal notion regarding recompense for damages that are sustained by someone as a direct result of a wrongful act or omission of one by another person).

To continue, this case centred around whether or not the government could be held delictually liable for losses suffered by a successful tenderer when the tender was set aside due to administrative errors.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling underlined the principle that organs of state, acting in good faith, do not owe a legal duty to compensate for such losses.

This judgment has profound implications for public procurement, emphasising the priority of administrative procedures and the limitations of seeking redress through delictual claims.

The matter was heard in the Constitutional Court on the 11th of May 2006 and judgement was made on the 28th of September 2006.

It highlights the balance between ensuring fair and transparent tender processes and protecting the state and its entities from extensive liability, thereby shaping the landscape of public procurement and administrative justice in South Africa.

This matter is of great importance in South African law, particularly in the context of government tenders and the administrative justice system.

This case underlines the challenges and complexities associated with the contractual relationships between the State and private entities, especially when a tender is awarded erroneously due to the State’s negligent, albeit bona fide, actions, and is subsequently set aside​​.

The Constitutional Court’s decision in this case highlighted several key legal principles.

First, it affirmed the absence of a legal duty on the tender board to compensate for damages where it had acted in good faith but negligently failed to comply with administrative justice requirements.

This viewpoint was reinforced by policy considerations, aiming to prevent an overflow of potential claims that could overshadow the decisions of tender boards​​.

The court found that the tender board did not owe a duty of care to Balraz. Thus, their conduct in negligently awarding the tender was not deemed wrongful, leading to the dismissal of Balraz’s appeal for damages​​.

The Initial Tender Process and The Subsequent Nullification

Balraz Technologies was initially awarded a government tender through a process that, while intended to be conducted with integrity and fairness, was later found to be flawed due to administrative oversight.

Despite the tender board’s good faith, their negligent handling led to significant procedural irregularities, concluding in the tender’s nullification.

The legal battle that ensued, ending at the Constitutional Court, centred on whether or not Balraz could claim damages for the economic losses suffered due to this nullification.

Ultimately, the court held that the tender board’s bona fide but negligent actions did not give rise to a duty of care that could support a delictual damages claim.

This ruling underscored the stringent criteria for economic compensation in cases of administrative errors in the tender process, setting a precedent on the limitations of redress available to aggrieved parties in such contexts​​​​.

Analysis of The Court Ruling

The Constitutional Court tackled significant issues surrounding the principles of good governance in public procurement, specifically focusing on the potential for delictual damages claims against a tender board by a successful bidder whose contract is later voided due to administrative irregularities.

The crux of the legal debate was whether the tender board’s negligent but bona fide actions, resulting in the irregular award of a tender, could constitute wrongful conduct that would obligate the board to compensate the aggrieved party for their economic losses​​​​.

The court meticulously evaluated the validity of the tender awarded to Balraz, scrutinising the company’s legal status at the time of tender submission and its compliance with the Companies Act.

It was determined that Balraz’s tender was fundamentally flawed as the company was not properly incorporated at the time of the bid, thereby challenging the tender’s legality and the presumption of the tender board’s duty to prevent harm​​.

This landmark ruling highlights the inherent tension between the principles of administrative justice and the limitations of delictual liability within the context of public procurement.

By dismissing Balraz’s claims for economic damages, the court accentuated the paramount importance of legal policy considerations in determining the scope of delictual liability.

It reinforced the stance that economic losses resulting from administrative breaches, particularly in the tender process, do not automatically entail a right to compensation.

It thereby sets a significant precedent for the interpretation of wrongful conduct and the application of delictual claims in similar future disputes​​​​.

The Issue of Wrongfulness in Delict and The Tender Validity

In grappling with the issues of wrongfulness in delict and tender validity, the South African Constitutional Court meticulously examined the principles underlying delictual liability in the context of public tender processes in this case.

The dispute centred around whether the Provincial Tender Board’s negligent conduct in awarding a tender later nullified, could be deemed wrongful to the extent of necessitating compensation for the economic losses suffered by the tenderer due to reliance on the invalid tender award​​.

The Supreme Court of Appeal previously determined that the tender board’s actions, although negligent, did not constitute wrongfulness that could give rise to delictual damages for the economic loss experienced by the tenderer.

This stance was rooted in policy considerations, arguing against the extension of delictual liability for economic damages in the absence of a clear legal obligation on the tender board to prevent such losses, especially when acting within its administrative and bona fide capacity​​.

The Constitutional Court, while evaluating the tender’s validity and the overarching legal framework, maintained a similar trajectory, emphasising the constitutional and legal standards that must be met for an act to be considered wrongful in the context of delict.

Despite acknowledging the tenderer’s incurred losses, the court upheld the principle that not all negligent acts by public authorities leading to economic loss automatically trigger delictual liability.

This approach reflects a careful balance between protecting the interests of individuals engaging in tender processes and the broader policy considerations that underpin the administration of public tenders.

Thus, while both courts acknowledged the tender board’s negligent administration, they concurred that such negligence did not meet the high threshold of wrongfulness required for delictual compensation for economic losses, highlighting the stringent criteria under South African law for extending delictual liability to economic damages in the realm of public procurement​​​​.

Broader Implications

The Constitutional Court’s ruling reiterates the principle that not all negligent actions by public authorities leading to economic loss are compensable in delict.

This has a profound impact on how future tenders are awarded and managed in South Africa, signalling to tender boards the importance of complying with administrative justice requirements to avoid the nullification of tender awards.

Moreover, the decision serves as a cautionary tale for tenderers about the limitations of seeking delictual damages for economic losses, thereby reinforcing the emphasis on accountability.

 As a result, tender boards are likely to become more cautious in their decision-making, ensuring that tender processes are conducted with enhanced transparency and fairness to mitigate the risks of administrative flaws​​​​.

This decision is a critical reminder of the considerations and care required when engaging in public procurement, especially in scenarios where the conduct of the state, whether negligent or in good faith, can significantly impact private entities.

It underscores the need for prospective tenderers to approach tender awards with caution, aware of the limited recourse available for economic losses due to administrative errors​​.

Furthermore, the case investigates the interplay between private and public law remedies, emphasising that the primary remedy for an administrative injustice is the correction of the administrative decision itself, rather than awarding damages to an aggrieved party.

The case thus serves as a pivotal point of reference for understanding the limitations of delictual claims in the context of public procurement and administrative law in South Africa.

Overview Consideration

There is legislation and precedents that were mentioned in the above case that are of great importance to how this matter will be dealt with in the future.

The court observed section 8 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 and found that the Applicant ought to have approached the court in terms of the Act, which empowers the court to grant an order that is just and equitable.

The issue was that the court could not determine whether the breach of the administrative duty by an organ of state may be extended by the claim for delictual liability as it concerned private law rather than public law.

The court is advising future tenderers that a claim similar to the above ought to include the Act; this will enable the court to grant the tenderers a remedy for their loss.

In the Millennium Waste Management (Pty) Ltd v Chairperson, Tender Board case, the court acknowledged the challenges faced by tenderers when an awarded tender is later invalidated due to administrative errors.[1]

This recognition paves the way for a different approach to handling public contract disputes, especially in considering the adverse impacts on innocent tenderers and the public interest.

[2]The court’s stance suggests a balanced judicial perspective, where the interests of innocent tenderers are carefully weighed against the public interest.

Such a judicial attitude implies that future remedies in public contract disputes may be crafted with greater sensitivity to mitigate undue harm to innocent tenderers, ensuring that the relief granted is just and equitable.

This approach highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the integrity of public procurement processes while ensuring fair treatment for all parties involved.

[1] [2007] ZASCA 165 Para 23.

[2] [2007] ZASCA 165 Para 23.

Read More:

Navigating the Legal Terrain of Tenders in South Africa

Tender Validity Period: Joubert Galpin Searle Inc and Others

Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board of the Eastern Cape (CCT71/05) [2006] ZACC 16; 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC); 2007 (3) BCLR 300 (CC) (28 September 2006)

The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act and the 180 Day Limitation Period

Book a Consultation

    Send me a copy