Question NW2344 to the Minister of Transport
05 September 2023 - NW2344
De Freitas, Mr MS to ask the Minister of Transport
(a) Which court orders regarding Siyangena Tehnologies have (i) been met and (ii) not been met to date, (b) what are the reasons that the specified orders have not yet been met and (c) by what date will the orders be met?
Reply:
a) (i)The court ruled in favour of PRASA in the High Court (Gauteng Division) case number 14332/18 and declared the Siyangena Technologies contract unlawful and irregular. Siyangena Technologies proceeded to launch an appeal application in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) under case number 487/2021. The SCA confirmed the High Court decision and thereby ruling in favour of PRASA.
(ii) Refer to (i) above.
b) The Superior Courts Act, 2013 provides that an application for leave to appeal, or an appeal, suspends the operation and execution of a decision, pending the outcome of the application or appeal. Consequently, a court order cannot be executed until the appeal proceedings are determined.
c) Siyangena Technologies has launched an application for leave to appeal the SCA judgment in the Constitutional Court. Siyangena Technologies has launched an application for leave to appeal the SCA judgment in the Constitutional Court and PRASA is awaiting judgment in that regard. The judgement from the Constitutional Court dismissed Siyangena’s leave to appeal the SCA judgement which in favour of PRASA. The Con Court further awarded costs in favour of PRASA. The parties (Siyangena and PRASA) must now appoint an engineer within 30 days of the judgement in order to determine the value of the works as per the judgement.