In the matter between:

and

AND IN THE COUNTER APPLICATION OF:

and

CHAIRPERSON SUPPLY CHAIN 

						JUDGMENT

In essence what this Court has to decide is whether the implementation of the contract between Loghdey and the City Council must be interdicted pending the review of the tender on which it is based.

These are notes on my decision, but if it becomes necessary for reasons to be given later, then that is what will happen, but these are just notes in preparation of the order that the Court will be giving later.

The long history of this saga need not be repeated here, except that reference to that history will be made when it is necessary to clarify certain issues which may be of assistance in the final determination of the matter.

	
In his application, Loghdey cited APS CC and Numque 20 CC as second and third respondents respectively.     During this time APS CC and Numque 20 CC had lodged an internal appeal against the award to Loghdey of the tender on the
basis of which the contract between Loghdey and the City Council stood.     Along the way, the City Council and Loghdey agreed  that  the  contract would   be  implemented   as  from 1 March 2009.   This is the milestone which prompted Loghdey and the City Council to agree further that the action for specific performance could then be settled and be withdrawn from court.

In the main, their counter claim prays that the main application and the review application be postponed for hearing in the Fourth Division on the semi-urgent roll on 28 October 2009.

I am therefore going to confine myself to the essence of this conglomeration of actions, which is the interdict against the implementation of the decision to award the tender to Loghdey.

Furthermore, with regards to the merits, counsel has argued vehemently   that   none   of   the   necessary   or   essential requirements   for   an   interdict   has   been   established   and therefore the application should be dismissed with costs.

Now,   counsel  for   Loghdey,   as   I   have  already  indicated, vigorously and strenuously argued here that this should be thrown out of court.

MAQUBELA, A J