Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

Summary: Pactum de non cedendo, subject to the prior written consent of a contracting party – Does not render an assignment between the other contracting party and a third party invalid – operates inter partes.

Non-variation clause – Does not prevent suspension of the enforcement of the right to resist a verbal assignment.

Arbitration clause – Inapplicable if the arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to determine one or more of the defences raised. Compliance by an organ of state with the legal framework for procurement raises a constitutional issue, and, if applicable, the exercise powers conferred on a court by section 172(1) of the Constitution, all of which fall outside the jurisdiction of an arbitrator.

Invalidity of contract - Alleged failure to comply with legal framework for procurement – General reliance on section 217 of the Constitution is insufficient in the case where the accounting official has given effect to section 217 of the Constitution and the Public Finance Management Act by establishing a lawful procurement system – Party relying on invalidity is required to allege and prove the specific breach of the relevant provision of the procurement system.

Notice of termination – Invalid notice does not preclude a contracting party from relying on a subsequent notice – Validity of notice depends on compliance with legal requirements and may, where applicable, be implied – Averments made in pleadings or affidavits in motion proceedings may constitute a valid notice.

Legitimate expectation to be heard – Where contractual rights are procured in a procurement setting through cession, thereby circumventing an open and public procurement process, the regulation of such rights through a no-cession clause cannot give rise to a legitimate expectation to be heard.