1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2026/053916
DATE: 13 APRIL 2026
In the matter between:
INFINITE BLUE ENGINEERING (PTY) LTD Applicant
And
JOHANNESBURG ROADS AGENCY (SOC) LTD First Respondent
KGOTSO MOKONE TRADERS CC Second Respondent
MORANGIE CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECTS CC Third Respondent
ZAMA TRAFFIC SIGNALS HIGH VOLTAGE Fourth Respondents
SYSTEMS CC
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
Date: ___ 13 April 2026
Signature:__
_________________
2
JUDGMENT
NYATHI, J:
Introduction
1. This is an urgent application in which the applicant seeks interim
interdictory relief pending the determination of a review application to
be instituted against a decision of the first respondent to advertise and
proceed with a supplementary tender for the provision of traffic signal
and related services.
2. The applicant contends that the supplementary tender duplicates an
existing tender pursuant to which it has already been appointed; that
there is no demonstrated operational necessity for such duplication; and
that the decision is unlawful, irrational, procedurally unfair and
inconsistent with section 217(1) of the Constitution.
3. The first respondent disputes urgency, denies the existence of any prima
facie right, relies on the non-exclusive nature of the service level
agreement, and asserts that the supplementary tender is justified by
operational imperatives and public interest considerations.
4. The sole question before this Court is whether the requirements for an
interim interdict have been satisfied.
3
Urgency
5. An applicant seeking relief under Rule 6(12) must demonstrate that it
cannot obtain substantial redress in due course.
6. It is common cause that the supplementary tender was advertised in
December 2025, closed on 28 January 2026, and remains open for
adjudication and award. The tender may be awarded at any time during
its validity period.
7. Once the tender is awarded and implemented, a parallel panel would
come into existence. At that point, the applicant’s contractual position
would be materially diluted, budgets diverted, and third-party rights
entrenched. A subsequent review would offer cold comfort.
8. The contention that urgency is self-created cannot succeed. Even if the
applicant had acted earlier, the inevitability of imminent award renders
the matter inherently urgent. The decisive inquiry remains whether
substantial redress would be available later. It plainly would not.
9. The requirements of urgency are therefore satisfied.
The Applicable Legal Test
10. The well-known requirements for interim interdictory relief are:
10.1 a prima facie right, even if open to some doubt;
10.2 a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm;
10.3 that the balance of convenience favours the grant of relief; and
4
10.4 the absence of an adequate alternative remedy.
Prima Facie Right
11. The applicant’s asserted right is not a claim to exclusive work. It is a right
to lawful, constitutionally compliant procurement and to protection
against the irrational duplication of an existing tender in circumstances
where its capacity has not been exhausted and its contract remains
extant.
12. Section 217(1) of the Constitution requires organs of state to procure
goods and services in accordance with a system that is fair, equitable,
transparent, competitive and cost-effective.
13. On the version before Court, which must at this stage be assessed on a
prima facie basis, the following features are salient:
13.1 The applicant was appointed under a main tender for the same
scope of work.
13.2 The first respondent has not demonstrated that the applicant’s
capacity has been exhausted or found inadequate.
13.3 The supplementary tender establishes a parallel panel for
materially identical services.
13.4 Eligibility requirements were lowered, without lawful termination
or variation of the existing framework.
5
13.5 No opportunity was afforded to the applicant to make
representations prior to the publication of the supplementary tender.
14. While the service level agreement is non-exclusive, such a clause cannot
operate as a licence to act irrationally or in breach of constitutional
procurement obligations. Non-exclusivity does not equate to unfettered
discretion.
15. The applicant has established, at least prima facie, that the decision to
publish the supplementary tender may be unlawful, irrational and
procedurally unfair, and therefore susceptible to review.
16. The requirement of a prima facie right is satisfied.
Irreparable Harm
17. If the supplementary tender is awarded and implemented, the harm to
the applicant will be immediate and irreversible. The dilution of its
contractual position, diversion of budget, and erosion of the economic
value of its appointment cannot be satisfactorily remedied by a future
setting-aside.
18. A claim for damages would be speculative, complex and inadequate in
the circumstances, particularly where public procurement processes are
implicated.
19. The apprehension of irreparable harm is well founded.
6
Balance of Convenience
20. The balance of convenience favours the grant of interim relief.
21. The interdict preserves the status quo. The first respondent remains able
to allocate work under the existing panel and has not demonstrated a
genuine emergency or incapacity that cannot be addressed within that
framework.
22. Against this must be weighed the prejudice to the applicant if a parallel
tender proceeds unlawfully, and the broader public interest in ensuring
compliance with constitutional procurement norms and guarding against
potentially wasteful expenditure.
23. The balance clearly favours interim restraint.
Alternative Remedy
24. The proposed review proceedings cannot prevent, in the interim, the
award or implementation of the supplementary tender. Once that occurs,
the review may be rendered largely academic.
25. No alternative remedy offers comparable protection to the relief sought.
This requirement is therefore met.
Conclusion
26. This Court is mindful that interim interdicts restraining procurement
processes should not be granted lightly. However, where serious
7
questions of constitutional compliance arise, and the harm apprehended
is real and irreversible, judicial intervention is both justified and
necessary.
27. The applicant has satisfied all the requirements for interim interdictory
relief.
Order
28. The following order is made:
1. The application is heard as one of urgency and the normal forms
and service are dispensed with.
2. Pending the final determination of the review application to be
instituted, the first respondent is interdicted and restrained from
awarding, implementing or taking any steps to give effect to
Tender No. JRA 25/26.
3. The applicant is directed to institute the review application within
10 (ten) days of this order.
4. The costs of this application are reserved for determination in the
review application / are costs in the cause.
____ _
JS NYATHI
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
8
HEARD ON: 01 April 2026
JUDGMENT DATE: 13 April 2026
FOR THE APPLICANT:
Adv NG Louw
INSTRUCTED BY: Albert Hibbert Attorneys, Pretora
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Adv N Loopoo
INSTRUCTED BY:
M Mogokare Attorneys
Delivery: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties'
legal representatives by email and uploaded on the CaseLines electronic platform. The
date for hand-down is deemed to be 13 April 2026.