29 May 2026: TEFLA Group (Pty) Ltd welcomes the judgment handed down on this week by the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, dismissing an urgent application by Working on Fire (Pty) Ltd to interdict the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment from concluding a Service Level Agreement with TEFLA.

The Court’s decision clears the way for the finalisation and implementation of the tender awarded to TEFLA for the continuation of the Working on Fire programme, a critical national initiative focused on wildfire management, disaster mitigation, and job creation.

Background

In 2022, the DFFE initiated a public procurement process to appoint a service provider for the Working on Fire programme under a five-year contract. Both WOF and TEFLA participated in the tender.

While WOF was initially awarded the tender in November 2022 and entered into an agreement with the Department, TEFLA subsequently challenged its disqualification and the lawfulness of that award through judicial review proceedings.

The Department conceded the review, and the High Court set aside both TEFLA’s disqualification and the award to WOF as invalid. Importantly, the Court suspended the invalidity of WOF’s contract on an interim basis to ensure continuity of services while the procurement defect was corrected.

Following this, the Department re-evaluated and re-awarded the tender, with TEFLA emerging as the successful bidder. Negotiations were then concluded for the remaining period of the original tender term, resulting in a two-year agreement aligned to the remaining budget cycle. WOF subsequently launched an urgent application seeking to prevent the Department from entering into an SLA with TEFLA, pending a review of the re-award decision.

Key findings

The High Court dismissed WOF’s application in its entirety, finding that:

• WOF failed to establish a prima facie right to justify the granting of an interim interdict.
• Any continued performance under the prior contract was merely a temporary remedy, not a legal entitlement flowing from an unlawful award.
• Alleged harms, including potential job losses, were not substantiated, particularly given TEFLA’s commitment to absorb affected employees.
• The prospects of success in WOF’s intended review were poor, especially regarding the two-year contract period, which the Court found to be justified and lawful in the circumstances.

The Court ultimately held that there was no basis to prevent the Department from concluding the SLA with TEFLA and ordered WOF to pay costs.