Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 NOVEMBER 2025

Market Intelligence Thought Leadership Award Winner

Consequences Of A Liquidator Ceding Rights Under A Contract

The Western Cape High Court recently delivered judgment in a dispute between Phuhlani Bafazi Construction (Pty) Ltd, trading as Chuma Security Services ("Phuhlani"), and the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa...

South AfricaGovernment, Public Sector

The Western Cape High Court recently delivered judgment in a dispute between Phuhlani Bafazi Construction (Pty) Ltd, trading as Chuma Security Services ("Phuhlani"), and the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa ("PRASA"). The case concerned the lawfulness of PRASA's termination of security services and the enforceability of contractual constraints in a public procurement context. Phuhlani sought interim interdictory relief to continue providing services after PRASA issued a late-August 2025 instruction to vacate PRASA sites. For this, Prasa asserted that no lawful relationship existed between PRASA and Phuhlani.

The dispute originated from a 2011 master agreement between PRASA and High Goals Investments CC ("High Goals"), which traded as Chuma Security Services, for the provision of security services. The agreement was repeatedly extended and eventually operated on a month-to-month basis.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from