Durban judge orders payback for security companies after city’s bill threat - TimesLIVE

The eThekwini Municipality has been ordered to pay punitive costs for its “high-handed” approach after six security companies were forced to go to court after the city attempted to short-change them, slashing 20% off their bills.

This, Durban high court judge Mahendra Chetty said, was seemingly an attempt at “financial strangulation” so the city could resort to emergency procurement measures, without proper tendering, to hire guards for municipal facilities.

Chetty, in his recent ruling, said the city’s contention that the companies had been “overcharging the city” with “obscenely high amounts” could not stand.

And he questioned why it had taken eight years for the city to question the contracts, saying it seemed opportunistic for it to only do so in a letter dated December 29 2025, when most people, including lawyers, were on leave.

Should the court not intervene, Chetty said, the security companies would have no option but to withdraw their services or face economic ruin.

“This would result in critical infrastructure of the municipality being unguarded and create precisely the emergency situation which would justify resort to a section 36 deviation (procurement) process, which the city has been yearning to carry out.”

The companies, Imvula Quality Protection, Excellerate Services, Vusa-Isizwe Security, Khuselani Security and Risk Management, Unitrade 1047 (trading as Isidingo Security Services) and Secureco Metsu, launched the court action after receiving the December letter informing them that they were to be paid according to the rates they charged in September 2017.

This was based on what the city said was an interpretation of a court order granted, by consent, in November 2017, in which a new procurement process was set aside on review.

The city in its December 2025 letter, claimed that that order had, in fact, “frozen” the rates and did not provide for any inflationary or statutory increases.

Without warning, and on the cusp of the New Year when most attorneys and counsel would have been on leave, an email was sent to the applicants at 9.56pm from acting city manager Sipho Cele

In August 2024, the city issued a request for guarding services under section 36 which allows for deviation from official procurement processes in emergency situations.

Various security companies opposed this and a consent order was made on December 11 2025, enforcing the status quo.

“Without warning, and on the cusp of the New Year when most attorneys and counsel would have been on leave, an email was sent to the applicants at 21h56 (9.56pm) from acting city manager Sipho Cele,” Chetty said.

The essence of it was that the city claimed it had “erroneously” paid increased rates from September 2017 and intended to recover these amounts.

“The letter effectively threatened to undo a pattern of payment which had been in operation for almost eight years.”

The security companies pointed out that this was unlawful, that they were legally obligated to pay guards statutory rates according to prevailing industry standards and their original contracts made provision for this.

They said the city was using a strategy to extricate itself from its lawful obligations.

Chetty agreed. He said the only possible explanation for the “trigger” after eight years was that four security companies had sought to interdict the section 36 process.

“The municipality noticed from the bids it received pursuant to this deviation process that the quotations were considerably lower than those it was currently paying to the applicants ... on this basis, it asserts that on the current rates being charged, it would incur a shortfall of R300m a year, which is fiscally unstainable.”

The city had put up no documents in support of this.

The city blamed the companies for being obstructive and placing unnecessary obstacles in its path to carry out a procurement process, Chetty said.

“A fair assessment of the facts points in the opposite direction — that the municipality dithered for over eight years without being able to run a fair, lawful and compliant procurement process,” he said.

He questioned why the city had not challenged any of the orders granted in favour of the security companies and suggested it should undertake “introspection of its own shortcomings”.

The applicants, he said, had sought to hold the municipality and acting municipal manager in contempt of court but that was best dealt with on another day even though “the timing of the December 29 letter leaves much to be desired”.