REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 2026-096011
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
2026-05-28
DATE
In the matter between :
WORKING ON FIRE (PTY) LTD
and
THE MINISTER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY,
FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL: THE DEPARTMENT OF
FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
THE SA YM-CEF JOINT VENTURE
TEFLA GROUP (PTY) LTD
NCC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE (PTY) LTD
COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE FUND (PTY) LTD
CATALYST ONE (PTY) LTD
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
Fifth Respondent
Sixth Respondent
Seventh Respondent
2
This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and
is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal representatives
by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. The
date for handing down is deemed to be 28 May 2026.
JUDGMENT
POTTERILL J
Introduction
[1] The applicant, Working of Fire (Pty) Ltd [WOF] on an urgent basis sought an
interim interdict against the first and second respondents, the Minister and the
Director-General of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment [the
Department] from entering into a Service Level Agreement [SLA] with the fourth
respondent, TE FLA Group (Pty) Ltd [TE FLA] pursuant to TE FLA being awarded tender
DFFE-T041. The Department and TEFLA opposed this application.
Background
[2] The Department in 2022 advertised a Tender for the appointment of a service
provider on a five year contract for the Working on Fire programme. WOF and TEFLA
were both bidders for the Tender.
[3] The bid evaluation process had five phases, TEFLA progressed to Phase 4, but
WOF progressed to Phase 5. As a result the tender was awarded to WOF in
November 2022 and a Memorandum of Agreement [MOA] was concluded with WOF
on 30 December 2022. The termination date was 4 January 2028.
[4] TEFLA instituted a judicial review to set aside its disqualification and the award
of the tender to WOF. The Department conceded the review and by agreement
Ledwaba DJP made an order that set aside TEFLA's disqualification and set aside the
award to WOF declaring it invalid. Paragraph 5 of the order reads:
3
"Pending the signing of a new service level agreement for any of the services
referenced in the Agreement, pursuant to a re-award of the tender, or pursuant
to a new tender process, the declaration of invalidity of the Agreement is
suspended."
[5] The Department re-awarded the Tender and TEFLA was determined to be the
successful bidder. The Department entered into negotiations with TEFLA and
concluded an agreement for two years instead of the original five years. The contract
price was accordingly reduced to what TE FLA had quoted for year four and five of the
Tender.
[6] The parties agreed that the matter was urgent.
Requirements for an interim interdict against an organ of state
[7] It is trite that WOF has to establish it has a prima facie right warranting interim
relief pending the review of the tender award. Furthermore, it must have a well
grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the interim relief is not granted, the
balance of convenience must lie with WOF, absence of any other satisfactory remedy
and the separation of powers harm must be considered.
WOF's submissions on a prima facie right
[8] Everybody's right to lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative
action is entrenched in our Constitution. 1 To invoke this right by means of an interim
relief, something more is required; this right can only be prima facie if irreparable harm
would follow if this right is not protected. The only right WOF is relying on is the right
to review submitting that the award is reviewable.
WOF's submissions on irreparable harm
[9] The irreparable harm set out by WOF is that it will be deprived of the opportunity
to render further services in terms of the order of Court with consequential job losses.
WOF's submissions on prospects of success
1 Section 33
4
[1 O] It further submitted that the award is reviewable under PAJA due to a material
deviation from the tender framework as the tender period awarded to TEFLA was
shortened from a 5-year contract to a 2-year contract. This resulted in the award being
arbitrary as a decision on pricing was not solicited. Negotiations on pricing only took
place with TE FLA to which the other bidders involved were not privy. The negotiations
was post-award.
[11] Furthermore , the Absa Bank guarantee on which the previous tender was set
aside is still relevant and the explanation of TEFLA that it was formerly a close
corporation and therefore it is correct that it banked at Absa since 30 October 2015
was incorrect. TEFLA's Central Supplier Database report indicated that its bank
account was opened on 17 June 2020. TEFLA's financials were bad as the guarantee
was only a purported guarantee. TEFLA also did not understand the scope of the
Tender and that the reduced scope renders the award to be set aside. It also raised
previous BEC comments concerning TEFLA's operational capacity.
[12] It submitted it had no alternative remedy.
Reasons for decision
WOF's prima facie right
[13] WOF has no prima facie right as a bidder in terms of a tender, the court order
or the award. The previous award of the tender to WOF was set aside because WOF
was disqualified from the Tender. The purpose of the order of the suspension of the
invalidity of the tender that was awarded to WOF was to allow the Department to
correct the defect, to advance effective public administration and to entrench the rule
of law.2 Suspension was a remedy, not compensation or reward to WOF, simply
because it has no right to benefit from an unlawful contract.
[14] WOF also has no prima facie right because as submitted "it has a legal right to
review the decision of the Department." In National Treasury and Others v Opposition
to Urban Tolling Alliance and Others 2012 (6) SA 223 (CC) the Court made it clear
to Urban Tolling Alliance and Others 2012 (6) SA 223 (CC) the Court made it clear
2 Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC) par [29]
5
that because no right stems directly from a right as a mere bidder it must flow from a
right, that "if not protected by an interdict, irreparable harm would ensue".3
[15) The irreparable harm raised by WOF does not afford it a prima facie right. The
rendering of further seNices was only a remedy, it cannot rely on a deprivation of these
seNices as a prima facie right. No right can flow from a disqualification from a Tender
and the consequential setting aside of the Tender.
[16) The job losses of the employees of WOF is not a ground sustaining irreparable
harm. In terms of the SLA TEFLA is required, and commits to do so, to absorb the
employees . This is not only a laudable programme in job creation, but also seNes to
address disaster management. The Tender has been awarded and the SLA is to be
signed, no irreparable operational , commercial or organisational harm will occur.
[17) Lastly WOF submitted that if the interim interdict is not granted any success on
review will be rendered as futile due to the contract expiring in 2028. The prospects
of success of WOF being successful on review is poor. The initial numerous issues
raised in the founding papers dwindled in argument to only two aspects.
[18) In argument the issues further petered out as the whole issue around Absa's
bank guarantee also had to be abandoned due to a fatal flaw in the argument.
[19) The only remaining issue was that the contract was negotiated with TEFLA for
two years instead of the initial five years of the Tender, with payment as set out for
respectively years four and five. This also reduced the scope of the work and rendered
the award of the Tender reviewable.
[20) It is common cause that the Tender period expires in 2028. Furthermore, the
award of the Tender was a re-award in terms of the Court Order. I find it difficult to
conclude there are prospects of success that a Court will set aside the Tender with
this as the only remaining ground of review. The Department explained that due to
this as the only remaining ground of review. The Department explained that due to
WOF being paid during the suspension, the remaining 2 years with budgetary
constraints only allowed for a further 2 year allocation, not a new 5 year allocation.
3 Par [50]
6
[21] The Tender did not reduce the scope because it was advertised as for 5 years.
The Department after negotiation with TEFLA, which is lawful, communicated an
award for the remaining period of the original tender. After taking a judicial peak the
prospects of success on review of the Tender is poor.
[22] WOF has not demonstrated that it has a prima facie right, even open to some
doubt, to interdict the Department from concluding a SLA with TEFLA, pending a
review. In finding it has no prima facie right I need not address the other requirements.
[23] I see no reason why the costs should not follow the result.
[24] The order is as follows:
The relief in part A of the notice of motion is dismissed. No interim interdict is
granted.
The applicant is to carry the costs of the first, second and fourth respondents.
The respondents are entitled to the costs of two counsel respectively, on scale
C.
7
CASE NO: 2026-096011
HEARD ON: 19 May 2026
FOR THE APPLICANT: ADV. M. DEWRANCE SC
ADV. M. SMIT
INSTRUCTED BY: Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc.
FOR THE 18T AND 2No RESPONDENT: ADV. I. JAMIE SC
ADV. A.G. CHRISTIANS
INSTRUCTED BY: State Attorney, Pretoria
FOR THE 4TH RESPONDENT: ADV. D. MPOFU SC
ADV. N. CHESI-BUTHLEZI
INSTRUCTED BY: Mabuza Attorneys
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28 May 2026
7