![]() Such a review should have been brought within 180 days of the impugned decision, rendering SITA’s review application many months late. The High Court concluded that SITA had to challenge its decision to conclude the agreement by way of judicial review in terms of PAJA. The issue could not be determined at arbitration and SITA approached the High Court to review and set aside the agreement under the principle of legality. ![]() When a payment dispute arose in 2013, SITA argued that the agreement with Gijima was invalid for want of compliance with the constitutional prescripts regarding public procurement, in particular, s217 of the Constitution. SITA, however, assured Gijima that proper procedures had been followed and went so far as to provide an unconditional warranty in this regard. Throughout the contract and negotiation period Gijima was concerned that the necessary procurement processes had not been complied with. The agreement was subject to various extensions and revisions. The facts were these: In September 2006 the State Information Technology Agency (SITA), the government’s information technology procurement agency, concluded an agreement in terms of which Gijima, a private company, would provide information technology services to the South African Police Service. The Constitutional Court recently delivered clarity in a landmark judgment: State Information Technology Agency SOC Limited v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd ZACC 40. In that matter Mbha AJ asked: “Is an administrator’s right to review its own decision sourced in PAJA or the broader principle of legality?” The learned Judge elected to leave this question open. This uncertainty was confirmed by the Constitutional Court in City of Cape Town v Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd 2017 (4) SA 223 (CC). Gijima CEO Maphum Nxumalo said: “Justice has yet again been done by our high court”, adding that he “looks forward to Sita's compliance with the court order”.In a previous alert, we highlighted a persistent uncertainty for litigants, in particular organs of state, regarding whether or not the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (PAJA) applies when seeking to review their own decisions. “Gijima and AVS are the only entities that satisfy the tender requirements,” she said, and on Wednesday she dismissed Sita's application for leave to appeal saying there was no reasonable prospect another court would think differently. Judge Leonie Windell said even though In2IT's R89m tender compared well on price with the R160m quoted by Gijima, the Indian company should have been excluded because it did not comply with requirements. ![]() Gijima challenged the 2020 decision to give the police PBX maintenance and support contract to In2IT, a multinational from India with a branch in SA, and won its case last October. The Gauteng high court's dismissal this week of the appeal bid by Sita means the agency has 30 days to sign a contract with ICT services firm Gijima and its partner Advanced Voice Systems (AVS). The State Information Technology Agency (Sita) has been denied leave to appeal against a court decision that it illegally awarded a contract for maintenance of the SA Police Service telephone system. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |