In this case, the plaintiff challenged the refusal of the Department of Water Affairs to grant him a Stream Flow Reduction Activity (SFRA) licence for its afforestation activities.

The plaintiff motivated his appeal of the decision by the fact that he considered the decision to be arbitrary and that it did not respect the procedure set up by the law. Indeed, even if the  Stream Flow Reduction Activity Licence Assessment
Advisory Committee recommended issuing the licence; the decision was not followed by the Chief Director of the Department of Water Affairs.

The Water Tribunal held that no information could be used to justify the refusal of the licence and that the decision of the Chief Director of the Department of Water Affairs was arbitrary. As a result, the Water Tribunal granted the licence to the appellant.