Areva NP Incorporated in France v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited and Others
Dissatisfaction with the outcome of a tender process can result in an award, made in terms thereof, being taken on review. This was the case in Areva NP Incorporated in France v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited and Others (CCT20/16, CCT24/16) [2016] ZACC 51 (21 December 2016), which concerned four applications to the Constitutional Court.
Eskom had awarded the contract for the replacement and installation of six steam generators, at the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, to Areva. Westinghouse Electric Belgium Société Anonyme (WEBSA), the second respondent in this action, contested the award. The High Court found in favour of Eskom and Areva. The SCA found in favour of WEBSA, overturning the High Court decision, but did not award it the tender, opting instead, to remit the tender to Eskom for fresh adjudication. Eskom and Areva both sought leave to appeal this decision. WEBSA sought leave to cross-appeal the SCA’s decision not to award it the tender and adduce new evidence with respect thereto.
Eskom and Areva’s applications for leave to appeal were granted. WEBSA’s applications were dismissed because it had no locus standi to institute the review proceedings in its own right. On this basis, Areva’s appeal was upheld.
Locus standi relates to the right or capacity to bring an action.
During the tender process WEBSA had submitted a tender with a covering letter stating that the offer was submitted on behalf of Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC). WEBSA and WEC were separate legal entities, one located in Belgium, the other in the USA, but both members of the Westinghouse Group. The Court found that WEBSA had acted as WEC’s agent in the submission of the tender.
It was held (the minority dissenting) that, just because WEBSA belonged to the same group of companies as WEC, did not give it the locus standi to institute court proceedings in its own right in a matter that only directly affected only WEC.
A stark warning to all those acting within a group umbrella to keep track of which entity, in fact, engaged in a particular transaction.