Court dismisses Prime African Security's bid to reclaim Eskom contract
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed Prime African Security's bid to reclaim an Eskom contract, reinforcing the legality of the procurement process and awarding costs against the applicants.
Image: File
THE Western Cape High Court has dismissed Prime African Security’s attempt to reclaim a lucrative contract with Eskom, ruling against the application “with costs on an attorney-and-client scale.”
This legal action arose from a dispute related to Eskom’s procurement of security services. In 2024, several contracts were annulled following a review of the tender process, leaving both Prime African Security and TDP Enterprises without the security contracts they had anticipated receiving.
In their court application, the companies argued that an internal recommendation from Eskom in their favour had not been acted upon, and they sought clarification, enforcement, or variation of a prior court order.
Judge Lekhuleni, who delivered the judgment electronically, firmly rejected these claims.
“This application is hereby dismissed,” the court stated, emphasising that the applicants’ arguments were an attempt to revisit issues that had already been conclusively decided.
The companies contended that Eskom officials had internally recommended that they be awarded or reinstated for certain security services contracts, but this recommendation was ignored. In the ruling, the judge clarified that such a recommendation did not constitute a binding order or entitlement that the applicants could enforce against Eskom.
“Suggesting that the applicants have any right to keep unlawfully providing security services to Eskom, despite a clear judicial ruling, is entirely unfounded,” the judgment read.
“It seems to me that the applicants’ true objective is to negate the effect of the validly granted court order declaring the tender unlawful, and to secure for themselves the continued benefit of an unlawful contract, together with the considerable financial rewards they would have received under it.”
Furthermore, the court confirmed the validity of Eskom’s subsequent procurement process, which resulted in the appointment of Eden Security Services, Ngova Trading, and Alert Patrol to provide security services at Eskom sites.
“Eskom contended that the applicants did not present any proof that the tender decision complied with legal requirements or that they had a legal right to be appointed as successful bidders,” the judge noted.
The applicants’ claims that these appointments were unlawful were dismissed, with the court emphasising that the urgent procurement was conducted in accordance with legal requirements and did not contravene any earlier orders.
Judge Lekhuleni highlighted that the applicants had failed to demonstrate any non-compliance by Eskom that would justify an interdict to block the security service appointments.
“Furthermore, an interdict is meant to prevent future conduct and not decisions already made. Eskom has already made a decision to appoint the opposing respondents, and those respondents have already commenced rendering services… an interdict is ill-suited in these circumstances.”
“The applicants seek to be appointed to render security services for a period of 12 months. The applicants did not allege that they could render these security services only during the period when the opposing respondents are rendering them. Evidently, it makes no difference when the appointment is made, only the period of appointment matters,” the judge added.