Court slams security firm’s attempt to hijack Eskom contract
Eskom's Megawatt Park head office.
Image: Eskom
Prime African Security’s latest bid to claw back a lucrative Eskom contract failed when the Western Cape High Court dismissed the application “with costs on an attorney-and-client scale”.
The court bid arose from a dispute linked to Eskom’s security services procurement.
In 2024, certain contracts were set aside following a review of the tender process, leaving Prime African Security and TDP Enterprises without the security contracts they had expected to be granted.
As a result, they went to court, arguing that an internal Eskom recommendation in their favour had not been acted upon and that the prior court order required clarification, enforcement, or variation.
Judge Lekhuleni, delivering the judgment electronically, rejected these claims.
“This application is hereby dismissed,” the court said, emphasising that the applicants’ arguments were an attempt to reopen issues that had already been conclusively decided.
The companies had argued that Eskom’s officials had internally recommended that they be awarded or reinstated for certain security services contracts, but that this recommendation was ignored.
In the ruling, the judge explained that the recommendation did not amount to 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,” read the judgment.
“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,” the judgment added.
In addition, the court confirmed the validity of Eskom’s subsequent procurement process, which resulted in Eden Security Services, Ngova Trading, and Alert Patrol being appointed 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,” said the judge.
The applicants’ contention that these appointments were unlawful was dismissed, with the court emphasising that the urgent procurement was conducted in line 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 was sufficient to justify an interdict to block Eskom from continuing with the security service appointment.
“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 judge added that “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.”
IOL BUSINESS