Abstract

Flowing from the constitutional imprimatur in s 172(1) to further ‘justice and equity’  (‘J&E’), the courts have made important strides in developing a framework for remedying  irregular public procurement. They have not, however, done so clearly and coherently;  nor in a way that encourages predictability in remedial outcomes. In response, we have  sought to leverage an argument for ‘reasonable certainty’ as a rule-of-law justification  for refining the framework in a comprehensive and helpful way that does not pit  form against ‘individualised justice’. We have done so against the backdrop of two  hypothetical tender scenarios — a review by a private contractor and a state self-review  — based upon a pattern emerging from the jurisprudence. Through our analysis, we  illustrate that ultimately the J&E enquiry is a kind of proportionality assessment that  has, at its heart, an appreciation of the overall ‘impact’ of setting a tender aside, from  both a practical and principled perspective. We posit a two-step approach to addressing  this overarching ‘impact question’: a big-picture assessment of the various interests to  be weighed in the balance, followed by the particularised balancing of these affected  interests with reference to several open-list factors. Ultimately, we seek to provide a  principled and pragmatic guide for the exercise of the courts’ remedial discretion and so  draw the analysis together by applying this framework to the scenarios sketched.