Court failed to deal with facts when it set aside Prasa contracts: Prasa

Siyangena Technologies is insisting that the High Court in Pretoria has failed to adequately deal with the facts at its disposal when it set aside its multibillion-rand contracts with the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa).

Siyangena’s Advocate Nic Maritz has argued in the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein, that arguments in the founding affidavits of Prasa constituted hearsay.

Siyangena is challenging the October 2020 order which found that it was unlawfully awarded contracts worth R6 billion by Prasa.

Among others, the contracts were for the work done on Prasa train stations, including automated access gates and camera installations.

Maritz has submitted that the High Court has misdirected itself.

He says, “That’s always been Prasa’s contention that the delay and the extent of the involvement will be on what was done and comes to remedy and they sought to make everything about the remedy.”

“We say if the witness’ affidavit had been taken to court, the court would have made the following findings, in other words, all those findings will have to be deleted from the full court findings as to what was done wrong. None of those wrongdoings then would be established and then you would be left with what we submit are technical infringements.”

VIDEO: Prasa whistleblower says government is failing to protect informers:
[embedded content]