Thandisile Business Services (Pty) Ltd v Department of Home Affairs and Others (2025-035879) [2025] ZAGPPHC 397 (16 April 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 397 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Thandisile Business Services (Pty) Ltd v Department of Home Affairs and Others (2025-035879) [2025] ZAGPPHC 397 (16 April 2025) Thandisile Business Services (Pty) Ltd v Department of Home Affairs and Others (2025-035879) [2025] ZAGPPHC 397 (16 April 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_397.html sino date 16 April 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 2025-035879 (1)      REPORTABLE: NO (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)      REVISED. DATE 16/04/2025 SIGNATURE In the matter between: THANDISILE BUSINESS SERVICES (PTY) LTD                             Applicant And THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS                            First Respondent LIVHUWANI TOMMY MAKHODE N.O.                            Second Respondent KUSILE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT                                  Third Respondent JUDGMENT/ ORDER HAVING READ THE DOCUMENTS FILED OF RECORD AND HAVING HEARD THE RESPECTIVE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES; THE COURT FOUND THAT: [1] The Applicant had opportunities to explain to the First Respondent why it was not possible for it to attach the specific documentation required in the published invitation to bid. This the Applicant could have done soon after the publication and when it submitted its bid or, at the latest, at the subsequent briefing session which the Applicant did not attend “as it was not compulsory”, opting instead to wait until the process is completed and the tender awarded, to then seek a review of the proceedings. Urgency was, in my view, self-created on these facts. ORDER 1. The matter is struck from the roll for lack of urgency. 2. No order is made as to costs. MPN MBONGWE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Appearances: For the Applicant: Adv S. Kunene Instructed by: M. Dlamini Attorneys Inc. For the Respondents: Adv L. Segola Instructed by: State Attorney, Pretoria Date of hearing: 26 March 2025 Date of delivery: 16 April 2025 THIS JUDGMENT WAS ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED TO THE PARTIES’ LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND UPLOADED ONTO CASELINES ON 16 APRIL 2025. sino noindex make_database footer start