Can I ask the municipality to extend the period to appeal?

“Our company recently tendered for municipal work. The tender was awarded to another company and the municipality published a notice allowing 21 days within which to lodge an appeal. We missed the notice because of the school holiday period and did not appeal. When we asked the municipality for an extension of the notice period to appeal, they refused. I still think we could be the successful tenderer if we could get a chance to show the municipality! Can we force them to allow us to appeal?”

In a very similar set of facts our High Court recently had to consider whether a municipality could provide an extension of time for an appeal to a party beyond the 21 day time period allowed for by the Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 which regulates the conduct of municipalities. 

In deciding on the matter the High Court found that the municipality, as an administrative authority had no general power to create an exception for a party who had failed to comply with the unconditional statutory time period where the statutory provisions did not create scope for exceptions to be made. Accordingly, despite the merits of whether an appeal should be considered, the fact that the appeal was submitted late could not be condoned by the municipality and the municipality did not have the power to make an exception and allow a late appeal. 

In your situation, it therefore sounds as if the same principle may apply and that despite your perceived merits in believing you have grounds for an appeal, the above principle will not allow your municipality to consider extending the period for the lodging of an appeal.

Government procurement however remains an intricate area and it is advisable that you obtain specialist legal advice before deciding on any specific course of action in this matter.

August 8, 2018
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest