XTLG Consulting and Projects (Pty) Ltd t/a Excellent Security Guards v Tyekana Protection and Cleaning (Pty) Ltd and Others

The applicant, XTLG Consulting and Projects (Pty) Ltd trading as Excellent Security Guards, had previously provided security services to the second respondent, Buffalo City TVET College. Following a re-advertised tender process, the applicant was replaced by the first respondent, Tyekana Protection and Cleaning (Pty) Ltd. The applicant challenged the lawfulness of the bid adjudication process and sought interim relief (Part A) reinstating it pending the finalisation of review proceedings (Part B). On 18 July 2025 the High Court granted an interim order restoring the status quo ante. Before written reasons were furnished (which had been requested by the second respondent), the first respondent filed a purported application for leave to appeal. The applicant opposed the application, contending that it was premature, irregular, and that the interim order was not appealable nor suspended. The matter before the court concerned two points in limine: whether leave to appeal could be sought before reasons were delivered, and whether the interim order was appealable or suspended.

The court declared that the application for leave to appeal was premature; that the order of 18 July 2025 was interim and not appealable; and that the order was not suspended and remained fully operative pending the final determination of the review application. The first respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application on an attorney-and-own-client scale. The judgment was referred to the Legal Practice Council and made available to another judge seized with related contempt proceedings.

The judgment reinforces important procedural principles in South African civil practice, particularly that leave to appeal cannot be sought without reasons for judgment and that interim orders are generally not appealable unless the interests of justice demand otherwise. It provides a firm application of section 18 of the Superior Courts Act regarding the non-suspension of interlocutory orders and underscores judicial intolerance for abuse of court process. The case is also significant for procurement litigation, highlighting the need for speedy finalisation of reviews involving organs of state.