Cape Town - A hotel company’s application for leave to appeal against a Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) tender for the administering of accommodation, mainly as a student residence but also as a hotel, has failed.
Ma-Afrika Hotels was aggrieved it was not automatically granted the 10-year tender after a different company was awarded the tender.
As the time had neared for Ma-Afrika’s lease to expire, CPUT advertised a request for proposals in respect of the future administration of the property.
CPUT’s primary interest was the continued operation of the premises for student accommodation.
A Ma-Afrika Hotels spokesperson said they were disappointed by the judgment and would take it on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal for review.
“We have however instructed our legal team to prepare a petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal for reconsideration of the issues, which we remain confident should succeed.
“CPUT’s refusal to extend the lease, twice previously extended by court order, caused Ma-Afrika to apply to the Western Cape High Court for the extension of the lease, pending the final determination of the appeal process.
“We remain committed to ensure job security for our valued employees, servicing our hotel clients at the Best Western Cape Suites Hotel, and ensuring uninterrupted service and secure accommodation for the CPUT students,” the spokesperson said.
Enquiries to CPUT were not answered by deadline on Tuesday. According to the judgment by Judge Ashley Binns-Ward, Ma-Afrika argued CPUT had failed to comply with Regulation 13 of the Preferential Procurement Regulations, 2017.
“The applicant contended that in the context of the applicant having made an acceptable tender, the CPUT had not been entitled to cancel the tender and, upon a proper construction of the regulation, had been obliged to award it to the respondent as the only compliant tenderer.
“The applicant indicated in its supporting papers that its application was founded on s 6(2)(b) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (‘PAJA’) in this regard.
“Section 6(2)(b) provides that an administrative action is susceptible to judicial review if ‘a mandatory and material procedure or condition prescribed by an empowering provision was not complied with’,” the judgment read.
Ma-Afrika argued, however, this court erred by failing to take into consideration the “Request for Proposal” issued by CPUT made it a condition of the tender it was subject to the Procurement Policy.
Cape Times