South Africa: Flyfofa must return all unjust profits from SAA contract

The South African Special Tribunal has overturned South African Airways’ (SAA) decision to extend a cargo aircraft leasing contract with Flyfofa Airways, valued at 85.34 million rand, in July 2019. In a ruling issued on September 11, 2026, and made public this week, the court found that this 36-month extension was made without a competitive process or the necessary approval from the National Treasury.

Flyfofa is now required to provide, within 30 days of the order, a detailed account of all amounts received from SAA and the actual costs incurred in executing the contract. The court requested that this statement specify the payments made during the period when the aircraft ZS-TGG was grounded, as well as any replacement services provided during that time.

Following the review of the account, Flyfofa must return any amount corresponding to an unjust profit or enrichment retained under the amendment. The ruling stipulates an interest rate of 11% per annum from the date of the order until payment is made. It also clarifies that SAA is not liable for any additional sums related to the annulled extension.

The dispute centered on an amendment signed on July 1, 2019, which extended an agreement concerning a Boeing 737-300F for three years. The Special Tribunal noted that no open tender preceded this extension and that no new authorization from the National Treasury had been sought, despite South African public procurement rules requiring a fair, transparent, competitive, and economically efficient process.

However, the court did not order the full reimbursement of the 85.34 million rand. It acknowledged that Flyfofa had provided a legitimate service and that the restitution calculation should consider the actual value delivered. The tribunal also dismissed the allegation of false declaration made by the Special Investigating Unit, which had brought the case to court.

The court clerk is to forward the ruling to the minister responsible for SAA and the current executives of the company for them to consider potential actions against those involved in the 2019 decision. The minister must inform the court within 90 days of any measures taken. The ruling does not impose any individual liability on former directors, who were not parties to the proceedings.