In this case, a the plaintiff challenged the decision of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry to refuse him a Stream Flow Reduction Activity (SFRA) licence in respect of an afforestation which he wishes to establish for commercial purpose.

The plaintiff challenged the refusal of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry in front of the Water Tribunal and grounded his appeal by the fact that the impact of the projected farm on the environment is limited because of its location in an isolated area along the coast. Also, the plaintiff pointed out that the refusal created a discriminatory situation because his neighbour was granted a SFRA licence for the same activities.

The Tribunal considered that the decision of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry was perfectly motivated and was reasonable with regards to the protection of the environment and of the interest of the plaintiff. Also, the Tribunal held that no discrimination had taken place because the application of the neighbour of the plaintiff had already been accepted before the study which was used as a scientific basis to justify the refusal.