The Registrar therefore denied the request on the basis that it would likely ‘mislead the public’, despite various steps that Compare was willing to implement to mitigate any potential confusion between itself and its administrator. The Registrar is empowered to refuse to register a medical scheme’s name or to change a medical scheme’s name if this would be ‘likely to mislead the public’. It intended on changing its name to “Universal Medical Scheme” to align itself with its administrator, Universal Healthcare Administrators (Pty) Ltd. The facts in Compcare were at first blush rather straightforward: Compcare Wellness Medical Scheme, a medical scheme registered in terms of the Medical Schemes Act, applied to the Registrar of Medical Schemes for approval to change its name. In Compcare, the SCA was called to determine the correct pathway in this scenario. What Gijima did leave open, however, was a scenario where: in seeking a review of its own decision or of another – an organ of state is acting in the public interest in terms of section 38 of the Constitution. It is an open secret that Gijima has not found universal favour with many questioning its foundational basis and philosophical underpinnings.
Such self-reviews must be pursued, so Gijima held, under the broader rubric of the principle of legality. The State is a bearer of those obligations. This being so because the right to just administrative action enshrined in section 33 of the Constitution rights is, according to Gijima, only enjoyed by private persons. Gijima CEO Maphum Nxumalo said: “Justice has yet again been done by our high court”, adding that he “looks forward to Sita’s compliance with the court order”.This case marks a determined distinction from the Constitutional Court’s contentious decision in State Information Technology Agency SOC Limited v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Limited 2018 (2) SA 23 (CC) which held that the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 does not apply when an organ of state, acting in its own interest, seeks to review its own decision. “Gijima and AVS are the only entities that satisfy the tender requirements,” she said, and on Wednesday she dismissed Sita’s application for leave to appeal saying there was no reasonable prospect another court would think differently. Judge Leonie Windell said even though In2IT’s R89m tender compared well on price with the R160m quoted by Gijima, the Indian company should have been excluded because it did not comply with requirements. Gijima challenged the 2020 decision to give the police PBX maintenance and support contract to In2IT, a multinational from India with a branch in SA, and won its case last October. The Gauteng high court’s dismissal this week of the appeal bid by Sita means the agency has 30 days to sign a contract with ICT services firm Gijima and its partner Advanced Voice Systems (AVS). The State Information Technology Agency (Sita) has been denied leave to appeal against a court decision that it illegally awarded a contract for maintenance of the SA Police Service telephone system.
0 kommentar(er)
