P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

THE LASER TRANSPORT GROUP (PTY) LTD v. ELLIOT MOBILITY (PTY) LTD - (01 Oct 2019)

Courts of law ought not to decide issues purely for academic interests

Contract

In facts of present case, aggrieved by losing the tender, the Appellants approached the Gauteng Division, Pretoria (High Court), seeking a review of the decisions taken by DIRCO in relation to both the first and the second tenders. They also sought interim relief that, DIRCO be restrained from implementing the agreement concluded with the Respondents.

The appeal is against the judgment of the Full Court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, sitting as a court of appeal from a decision by a single judge in the High Court. The High Court had set aside on review the award of a tender and the appeal against that order succeeded. In the result, an application by the appellants to have a decision to award a tender in favour of the respondents set aside, was dismissed with costs. The Appellants’ submission was that, the appeal was not necessarily moot. The question whether the decision of this court would have a practical effect depended on the judgment of this court on the merits of the appeal.

Present court has, on numerous occasions, pronounced on the guiding principles for determining whether an appeal should be entertained, where a decision thereon will have no practical effect or result. The main principle is that, courts of law ought not to decide issues purely for academic interests. This Court has a discretion to refuse to consider merits where an appeal is moot, or to entertain an appeal even though it is moot, where there is a discrete legal issue of public importance which would affect matters in the future.

Present Court has exercised its discretion to determine appeals which are moot where issues arising involve a discrete legal point of public importance that would affect matters in the future. In their alternative submission, the Appellants argued that this Court should exercise its discretion to entertain this appeal because the issues that arise ‘could or should’ affect similar matters in the future. They contended that the interpretation of Section 2(1)(a) of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act of 2000 (PPPFA) involved Constitutional issues10 that impacted on public procurement, just administrative action, and access to courts. There are no grounds for the court to exercise its discretion in favour of entertaining an appeal that is moot.

Even if the assessment of objective factors under Section 2(1)(b)(i) of the PPPFA was incorrectly applied, or the tender process was tainted by illegality or the Full Court’s substitution of tender award was wrong, no basis was laid for a conclusion that the matter raised issues of public importance. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : TENDER   AWARD   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved