The dispute between AllPay and Cash Paymaster Services (CPS), which has been dragging on for months, is close to conclusion after judgement was reserved in the Constitutional Court yesterday.
AllPay took to the Constitutional Court after it lost its case in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The ongoing litigation came after a R10 billion contract was awarded to Net1 subsidiary CPS by the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) for the distribution of pensions and social welfare grants for five years.
AllPay, a unit of big four bank Absa, took the matter to court, arguing that CPS' win of the multimillion-rand deal was unlawful, after which the North Gauteng High Court ruled that, while the deal was illegal and invalid, it would remain in place so that payments could continue. The case was taken to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which ruled in March that the tender process followed by SASSA in awarding the contract was valid and legal.
Yesterday, AllPay's legal team claimed that CPS' three partners were not assessed, as is legally required. CPS reportedly submitted a consortium bid that expressly indicated that more than 74% of the execution and management of the tender will be undertaken by the consortium partners and not by CPS. AllPay submitted that this is unfair, inequitable and anti-competitive.
AllPay also raised "new evidence" that is based on a secretly recorded conversation between Roedolf Kay, national co-ordinator of the South African Older Persons Forum, and John Tsalamandris, an apparently disgruntled SASSA employee, who took minutes at the tender bid committee meetings. On the recording, Tsalamandris supposedly makes a number of vague allegations that suggest the tender process was corrupt.
Another grievance raised by AllPay involves a second bidder's notice that it says was designed to eliminate bidders other than CPS. Apparently, the first bidder's notice mentioned biometric verification for every payment made as a preference, while the second notice mentioned this as a requirement. This led to AllPay being disqualified.
CPS notes in its court submissions that SASSA's requirements were made clear in the original request for proposals and that CPS could fulfil these requirements while AllPay could not. The company also emphasises that AllPay never raised any concerns during the tender process, but only after it lost.
CPS confirmed that it now awaits the court's judgement, while AllPay declined to comment. No indication has yet been given of when the court's judgement will be delivered.
Share