{"title":"《南非市政制度法》第62条规定的投标人补救措施的可行性","authors":"K. Udeh","doi":"10.14803/3-2-12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the extent to which an unsuccessful bidder is afforded a viable appeal remedy under section 62 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act No 32 of 2000, following the decision of the High Court in Loghdey v City of Cape Town (100/09) [2010] ZAWCHC 25. Until this case held to the contrary, it was taken for granted that the section generally accorded unsuccessful bidders the right to internal appeal against the award decision of a municipality’s delegated authority. Although a later decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal in CC Groenewald v M5 Developments (Pty) Ltd [2010] ZASCA 47 para 21, held that section 62 appeal is available to unsuccessful tenderers, it seemingly did not settle the issue; as it has been suggested that the two cases are distinguishable. Besides, consistent judicial interpretation of section 62(3) has further cast doubt on the viability of bidder remedies under the section. It is argued here that the decision in Loghdey is flawed; and has been effectively overruled in CC Groenewald . Thus, section 62 definitely affords internal appeal rights to unsuccessful bidders against award decisions of municipalities’ delegated authority. Furthermore, reasons are presented to urge the court to reconsider and depart from its current interpretation of section 62(3) that limits the viability of bidder remedy under section 62.","PeriodicalId":424456,"journal":{"name":"African Public Procurement Law Journal","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"VIABILITY OF BIDDER REMEDIES UNDER SECTION 62 OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS ACT\",\"authors\":\"K. Udeh\",\"doi\":\"10.14803/3-2-12\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the extent to which an unsuccessful bidder is afforded a viable appeal remedy under section 62 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act No 32 of 2000, following the decision of the High Court in Loghdey v City of Cape Town (100/09) [2010] ZAWCHC 25. Until this case held to the contrary, it was taken for granted that the section generally accorded unsuccessful bidders the right to internal appeal against the award decision of a municipality’s delegated authority. Although a later decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal in CC Groenewald v M5 Developments (Pty) Ltd [2010] ZASCA 47 para 21, held that section 62 appeal is available to unsuccessful tenderers, it seemingly did not settle the issue; as it has been suggested that the two cases are distinguishable. Besides, consistent judicial interpretation of section 62(3) has further cast doubt on the viability of bidder remedies under the section. It is argued here that the decision in Loghdey is flawed; and has been effectively overruled in CC Groenewald . Thus, section 62 definitely affords internal appeal rights to unsuccessful bidders against award decisions of municipalities’ delegated authority. Furthermore, reasons are presented to urge the court to reconsider and depart from its current interpretation of section 62(3) that limits the viability of bidder remedy under section 62.\",\"PeriodicalId\":424456,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Public Procurement Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Public Procurement Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14803/3-2-12\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Public Procurement Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14803/3-2-12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文考察了高等法院在Loghdey v City of Cape Town (100/09) [2010] ZAWCHC 25案中作出裁决后,根据《地方政府:2000年第32号市政系统法案》第62条,未成功的竞标者在多大程度上可以获得可行的上诉救济。在本案发生相反情况之前,人们理所当然地认为,该节通常赋予未中标的投标人对市政当局授权的裁决决定进行内部上诉的权利。尽管最高上诉法院后来在CC Groenewald诉M5 Developments (Pty) Ltd [2010] ZASCA 47第21段的决定中认为,第62条的上诉适用于不成功的投标者,但它似乎并没有解决这个问题;正如已经提出的,这两种情况是可区分的。此外,对第62(3)条的一致司法解释进一步使人怀疑该条下投标人救济的可行性。这里有人认为,Loghdey案的决定是有缺陷的;并在格林瓦尔德案件中被有效驳回。因此,第62条明确规定,不成功的投标人有权对市政当局授权的裁决提出内部上诉。此外,还提出了理由,敦促法院重新考虑并放弃其目前对第62(3)条的解释,该解释限制了第62条规定的投标人救济的可行性。
VIABILITY OF BIDDER REMEDIES UNDER SECTION 62 OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS ACT
This article examines the extent to which an unsuccessful bidder is afforded a viable appeal remedy under section 62 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act No 32 of 2000, following the decision of the High Court in Loghdey v City of Cape Town (100/09) [2010] ZAWCHC 25. Until this case held to the contrary, it was taken for granted that the section generally accorded unsuccessful bidders the right to internal appeal against the award decision of a municipality’s delegated authority. Although a later decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal in CC Groenewald v M5 Developments (Pty) Ltd [2010] ZASCA 47 para 21, held that section 62 appeal is available to unsuccessful tenderers, it seemingly did not settle the issue; as it has been suggested that the two cases are distinguishable. Besides, consistent judicial interpretation of section 62(3) has further cast doubt on the viability of bidder remedies under the section. It is argued here that the decision in Loghdey is flawed; and has been effectively overruled in CC Groenewald . Thus, section 62 definitely affords internal appeal rights to unsuccessful bidders against award decisions of municipalities’ delegated authority. Furthermore, reasons are presented to urge the court to reconsider and depart from its current interpretation of section 62(3) that limits the viability of bidder remedy under section 62.