In the recent judgment, Infinite Blue Trading 29 cc t-a Motau Projects v Johannesburg Roads Agency Soc Limited (2024-004605) [2024] ZAGPJHC 417 (25 March 2024), the court ruled in favour of a contractor seeking an interdict against the Johannesburg Roads Agency (JRA) for its purported repudiation of a service agreement. The dispute arose after the JRA, citing findings by the Auditor General regarding irregularities in the tender process, stopped issuing purchase orders to the contractor. The contractor argued that this amounted to a repudiation of their agreement.
The court found that the JRA’s actions did indeed constitute repudiation and that the Auditor General’s opinions were not binding or a lawful basis for terminating the contract. The court emphasised that any irregularities identified during the tender process should have been challenged in court through a self-review process, allowing the contractor to contest the findings.
As a result, the JRA was ordered to reinstate the contract and continue issuing purchase orders immediately. The court also ordered the JRA to cover the contractor’s legal costs. This judgment reinforces the principle that state entities must respect private contracts and can only terminate them in accordance with contractual and legal obligations.
Feel free to contact an expert at SchoemanLaw if you are experiencing payment challenges based on “non-compliance” raised in the public context.
Recent Comments