---

·      Transnet has tried and failed in court to force Gijima Holdings to disengage from IT services contract ·      Despite the dispute, Gijima continued providing services for three months after expiry of its contract ·      Transport and Treasury ministers did not oppose Gijima’s demand for payment

---

Sizwe sama Yende

---

Transnet SOC has been ordered to pay R60.1 million it has withheld amid a legal wrangle to force IT company, Gijima Holdings, to disengage from its contract which expired in June 2025 . 

Gijima Holdings’ five-year IT data services contract worth R1.5 billion expired in November 2024, but was extended until 30 June 2025 as Transnet readied itself to take over or appoint the next service provider.

However, Transnet has not been ready to take over and Gijima has refused to disengage without seeing the state company’s viable transition plan. 

Transnet has, nonetheless, tried to force Gijima’s exit through an application in the North Gauteng High Court but has been unsuccessful as the court found that the state company  did not possess the technical capability, infrastructure, or skilled personnel to assume the data services as confirmed by its chosen transition partner Microsoft’s expert witness . 

Transnet’s subsequent appeal also failed as  acting Judge Jacques Minaar’s stuck to his guns that the company was not ready despite citing 17 grounds to be granted leave to appeal. Minnaar also said Transnet had no prospect of success in another court based on its witnesses’ evidence.

On Thursday last week, Judge Harshila Kooverjie issued a judgement directing Transnet to pay Gijima, owned by global entrepreneur Robert Gumede, three invoices for July, August, and September. 

Transnet had not paid R20 044 669.21 for each of the months after it launched its first application in June, which the court dismissed on October 16. 

PRIVATE ARBITRATION

Despite the ongoing litigation, Gijima has continued to provide the IT data services that involves the entire country's rail network, running container and wagon services over thousands of kilometres of rail with hundreds of depots and shunting yards without receiving any payment since July to date.

The company said it continued because  it was providing an essential service to Transnet and the country. Gijima is on record indicating that it was ready and willing to disengage and allow the Transnet transition based on a sound plan and availability of the required skills.  Any failure during this period, Gijima believes, would harm its reputation.

“The first respondent (Transnet SOC) shall under protest make payment to the applicant (Gijima) for the amounts claimed by Gijima in terms of the following invoices,” Judge Kooverjie said in her December 18 judgment.

Kooverjie said the payment should be made before 12pm on December 22.

In her judgement, she said  that the parties had agreed to engage in urgent private arbitration, which should be concluded on or before 13 February 2026.

Transport minister, Barbara Creecy, and National Treasury minister, Enoch Godongwana, were cited as respondents and they did not oppose Gijima’s application for payment.

TRANSNET’S NON-PERFORMANCE

In response to the latest judgement, Transnet said: “At this stage, Transnet has nothing further to add on this matter, as it remains subject to legal proceedings.”

It is not clear if Transnet legal team, Mkhabela Huntley Attorneys Incorporated will advise  Transnet  to continue fighting the battle in court after losing for the third time in the row . 

When Minnaar dismissed Transnet’s urgent application on October 16 and its application for leave to appeal, he highlighted how unready Transnet had been but continued to demand Gijima’s disengagement. 

“Transnet did not, as at the date of launch, by 30 June 2025, or even at the hearing of the oral evidence, possess the technical capability, infrastructure, or skilled personnel to assume the services. The absence of a transition plan, the lack of additional ICT resources, and the admitted dependence on third- party procurement all point to the same conclusion,” Minnaar had said.

“The attempt to compel performance in the face of Transnet's own material non-performance is not only without merit, but also impermissible.”