---

Kanjani (Pty) Ltd was awarded a tender for the department’s Sibuyel’emasimini (We are going back to the fields) project that intended to ensure food security for rural households.

---

Sizwe sama Yende

---

The controversial awarding of a contract to support subsistence farmers more than a decade ago is still haunting the Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture after a company that was supplanted continues with its claim of R65.4 million.

Kanjani Trading (Pty) Ltd has successfully appealed a Pretoria High Court judgement that had dismissed its claim against the department to be paid for work it had done.

The department had successfully applied for the dismissal of the matter because Kanjani had delayed the trial. On appeal, the same court turned down a judgement which supported the department’s application to have the matter dismissed.

At the centre of the dispute was an outstanding payment of 452 invoices amounting to R69 million that the department refused to pay claiming that it was overcharged.

The department had, however, already paid the company R121 million for work done before.

Kanjani was awarded a tender for the department’s Sibuyel’emasimini (We are going back to the fields) project in the province’s two districts of Gert Sibande and Nkangala that intended to ensure food security for rural households.

The company’s job entailed helping subsistence and small-scale farmers with machinery and implements to plough fields, providing manure and seeds.  

“In summary, this court concludes that in dismissing the action of

Kanjani, the court below (high court) exercised a loose discretion. This court is entitled to interfere with that exercise of discretion. The requirements for the dismissal of an action has not been demonstrated,” Judge Graham Moshoana said in the April 15 judgement supported by two colleagues – Judges Linda Retief and Mmonoa Teffo.

“As such, the action of Kanjani ought not to have been dismissed …The litigation in this matter has not been altogether smooth. It is apparent that the legal team of both parties were involved, perhaps unconsciously, in a charade of attempting to demonstrate superior knowledge to each other. Such a charade did not serve the best interests of this litigation.”

The court ordered a judicial case management to keep with strict timelines for certain actions that will ensure finality of the dispute.

The court heard that in the middle of the contract in 2014, the department decided to stop honouring the invoices for work performed by Kanjani.

“The basis for the refusal to honour the invoices was that there appeared to be invoicing irregularities (constituted by wrong hectares charged for, services not contracted for being charged for, and wrong rates per hectares being charged for).”

Kanjani was chagrined by the department’s refusal to pay and on August 5 2014, Kanjani instituted an action against then MEC Vusi Shongwe and demanded payment of an amount of R68, 767,767.24.

Shongwe entered an appearance to defend the action. “Since Kanjani held a view that the MEC is bereft of a bona fide defence and the appearance to defend was entered solely for the purposes of delay, it applied for a summary judgment,” reads the court judgement.

According to the judgement, then HOD, Sindisiwe Xulu, indicated that a forensic investigation would be conducted to prove the department’s case.

“To the contrary, certain invoices were approved and paid by departmental officials, in the circumstances where no payment ought to have been made. In certain instances, overpayments were made and invoices were inflated. A proper forensic analysis which will be undertaken in due course will reveal serious shortcomings in the payment system which was implemented by departmental officials and lack of proper controls which unduly exposed the department,” Xulu had argued.

Kanjani subsequently reduced its claim to R65.4 million in 2020. On April 6 2021 Shongwe launched an application to dismiss the action and labelled it a farce.

“I pause to mention that it was, in my view, inappropriate for the MEC, through his legal team to have labelled the litigation farcical. This Court is unable to observe anything imbecilic or buffoonish about a litigation where payment for services rendered piggy-backed by a legality review (counterclaim) is concerned,” Judge Moshoana said.

Moshoana said that the MEC and his legal team employed tactics that derailed the present litigation and made it to be glacial.