SIU v Kroucamp Plumbers (Pty.) Ltd. and others

Background and context

In the matter of Special Investigating Unit (SIU) v Kroucamp Plumbers and Others, the Special Tribunal was asked to review and set aside two tenders awarded by the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure’s Regional Bid Adjudication Committee (RBAC) to Kroucamp Plumbers CC (Kroucamp Plumbers). Alternatively, the SIU sought to hold the company and its director personally liable for the amounts received from the Department in relation to the tenders.

The first tender was awarded on 29 September 2015, and the second on 26 February 2018. Both contracts were for vacuum pumping of septic tanks and emergency sewerage works.

The SIU approached the Special Tribunal for just and equitable relief in terms of section 4(1)(c), read with section 8(2) of the SIU Act, and alternatively, section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution. The SIU contended that the tenders were awarded unlawfully, fraudulently, and corruptly, on the following grounds:

• The bid documents were incomplete and contained incorrect information.
• The chairperson of the Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC), Mr Kraemer, had a personal and business relationship with the director of Kroucamp Plumbers, Mr Kroucamp, which he failed to disclose.
• Mr Kraemer, in his capacity as Chief Works Engineer of the Department, submitted a memorandum to the RBAC recommending the award of the tender to Kroucamp Plumbers.
• Kroucamp Plumbers made irregular payments to Mr Kraemer’s wife and various Department employees involved in the awarding of the tenders and certifying work.
• Kroucamp Plumbers’ B-BBEE certificate was fraudulent and improperly obtained.
• Mr Kroucamp personally benefited financially from the award and implementation of the tenders.

“This judgment affirms the Tribunal’s resolve to hold individuals personally accountable for corrupt procurement—even piercing the corporate veil to recover stolen public funds.”

Judgment of the Special Tribunal

Judge Makhoba delivered a judgment addressing several procedural and substantive issues, including:

• Condonation for the late filing of the review application, which was granted in the interests of justice, given the delays stemmed from reasonable factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, inefficiencies at the State Attorney’s office, and the timing of the relevant proclamation.
• Application to strike out portions of the SIU’s founding affidavit, which was dismissed. The Tribunal found the challenged averments were not hearsay.  
• Corporate veil piercing: The Tribunal relied on section 20(9) of the Companies Act and the precedent set in Ex Parte Gore N.O and Others to find that Mr Kroucamp had abused the juristic personality of Krouocamp Plumbers to commit fraud. As a result, the company was deemed not to be a separate legal entity in respect of liabilities arising from the tenders, and Mr Kroucamp was held personally liable.
• The respondents’ counter-application, which claimed R33 million on the basis of unjust enrichment, was dismissed on the grounds that it had prescribed and did not comply with procedural requirements.

The Tribunal held that the tenders were awarded unlawfully and granted the relief sought.

Order

• Judge Makhoba granted condonation for the SIU’s late filing.
• The decisions awarding the tenders to Kroucamp Plumbers were reviewed and set aside as unconstitutional, unlawful and invalid.
• Kroucamp Plumbers was declared not to be a juristic person regarding any obligation or liability under the tenders, and liability was imputed to Mr Kroucamp.
• Kroucamp Plumbers and Mr Kroucamp were held jointly and severally liable to repay all amounts received from the Department, excluding any actual, reasonable, lawful and provable out-of-pocket expenses (but excluding profits and certain other costs).
• Repayment is to be made to the SIU’s designated bank account.  

Timeline of events

Conclusion

This judgment is a strong affirmation of the Special Tribunal’s mandate to protect public funds by holding individuals and companies accountable for corrupt procurement practices. It demonstrates the Tribunal’s willingness to pierce the corporate veil where fraud is proven and recover unlawfully gained profits. The final recovery in this matter could exceed R67 million, with R46,6 million stemming from the 2015 tender, and R20,3 million from the 2018 tender. (Read more)

The Progress Report will continue to monitor and report on this and other significant anti-corruption cases, keeping the public informed and supporting efforts to strengthen institutions and uphold accountability.

It also underscores the need for ongoing public scrutiny of anti-corruption efforts in South Africa. As part of its mandate, The Progress Report exists to monitor and report on the progress of corruption cases, particularly those before the Special Tribunal and the Specialised Commercial Crimes Courts. By tracking these matters from investigation to judgment, we help ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.

In a country where trust in public institutions has been eroded by systemic corruption, staying informed is essential. Public awareness and engagement are key to holding institutions accountable, supporting legal reform, and ensuring that those responsible for the misuse of public funds are brought to justice. The Progress Report will continue to follow these cases closely and provide accessible, factual reporting to keep the public informed and to support a stronger, more transparent democracy.

Read more: