The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The Department of Trade and Industry (the dti) has noted with concern media reports suggesting that it has reached a settlement with Valor IT after the company brought an interim interdict on an urgent basis against Minister Davies, the Director-General, CIPRO and the CEO of CIPRO. The interdict was to prevent the Implementation of the decision of the Director-General to cancel the Electronic Content Management (ECM) Tender awarded to Valor IT on the 3rd February 2009. These reports are devoid of any truth and none of the figures reported are correct.

Valor IT application was heard on 25 November 2010 but was however not finalised as the presiding judge requested parties to explore settling the matter in the public interest. the dti applied all bona fide efforts to try and settle the matter.

However, after entering into negotiations in good faith the parties were unable to reach a settlement. Acting on both legal advice and advice of the Auditor-General's office, the dti could not find any reasonable grounds or any legal basis to pay any further money to ValorIT.

The demands of Valor IT were further considered to be unreasonable, grossly excessive and lacking any legal basis. The forensic investigation by both the Auditor General and an independent firm instructed by the dti advised that the awarding of the tender was irregular. Any further payment to Valor IT is accordingly irregular. the dti is of the view that any settlement must be justifiable on legal grounds and must be in line with various public service regulations. There is therefore no settlement and legal counsel for the dti has requested the Court to make a determination on the validity or otherwise of Valor IT’s claim

The department is confident that the settlement on the terms that Valor IT wanted would not have been in the public interest and that it would have undermined the very principles that the dti sought to uphold when a decision to terminate the ECM contract was taken.

As indicated above, the parties have failed to reach a settlement and the matter is now before the courts to make a final determination. The department maintains that it acted within its rights, and in the public interest in terminating the ECM contract.

Therefore any suggestion that there is a settlement is unfounded and has no factual bases.