High Court sets aside Johannesburg Water tender, gives city 150 days to restart process
A High Court ruling in Johannesburg has declared a major Johannesburg Water tender unlawful, setting aside contracts awarded for the supply and delivery of potable water while granting the utility 150 days to run a fresh procurement process to avoid disruptions to already strained water services.
Judge Evette Dippenaar ruled that Johannesburg Water’s decision to award a 36-month “as and when required” potable water supply tender to Builtpro Construction and Nutinox was constitutionally invalid, after finding that the tender had lapsed before any lawful award was made.
The ruling comes amid ongoing water supply challenges across Johannesburg, where intermittent outages, reliance on water tankers and aging infrastructure have become a persistent reality for many communities.
Services protected despite invalid tender
While setting aside the tender and all related service level agreements, the court suspended the declaration of invalidity for 150 calendar days. This allows Johannesburg Water to continue receiving services while it undertakes a new and lawful tender process.
Judge Dippenaar stressed that the court could not ignore the city’s water crisis when crafting a remedy.
“The water issues experienced by consumers are well documented and require no repetition,” she said, adding that uninterrupted service delivery remains “of great importance to the public at large, and specifically to the communities involved”.
The judge noted that an unrealistically short deadline for restarting the tender process could leave vulnerable residents at risk, particularly those who depend on emergency water deliveries.
Tender validity period at the heart of the dispute
The case was brought by LTC Holding CC, an unsuccessful bidder that had been providing services to Johannesburg Water on a month-to-month basis until November 2024.
Johannesburg Water issued the original invitation to tender in July 2023, with bids closing on 31 August 2023. Although the utility claimed the bid validity period had been extended to 4 May 2024, this was disputed.
Judge Dippenaar found it was common cause that the final extension expired on that date, and that bid validity extensions must be agreed to before a tender lapses.
“If the extension is not agreed to before the lapse of the validity period, it is the end of the tender,” she said.
The court rejected Johannesburg Water’s reliance on its supply chain management policy, which it argued allowed it to proceed even if bidders failed to respond to extension requests. The judge found there was no proof that all bidders had consented to the extensions.
“In the absence of proof that there was, after the expiry date, a valid tender process, the tender falls to be set aside for this reason alone,” she ruled.
Award communicated too late
The court also found that Johannesburg Water only communicated the tender award to Builtpro Construction and Nutinox on 24 June 2024 — well after the validity period had expired.
Johannesburg Water argued that it was sufficient for the decision to have been taken within the bid validity period, even if it was communicated later. The judge dismissed this argument, emphasising that acceptance of a tender must be communicated timeously to be legally effective.
“That contention does not bear scrutiny,” she said.
Costs awarded against Johannesburg Water
The court ordered Johannesburg Water to pay the legal costs of the application, adding further financial pressure to an entity already grappling with infrastructure failures, revenue losses and public frustration.
For Johannesburg residents, the ruling highlights both the fragility of the city’s water supply system and the consequences of flawed procurement processes. While the 150-day suspension aims to prevent immediate service disruptions, the judgment places renewed pressure on city officials to urgently fix governance failures — before taps run dry again.