City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Municipal Employees & Civil Servants Union and Others
( Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg ) Case No 2025-024810 | Judgment delivered 31 July 2025
The judgment has been marked REPORTABLE because it clarifies the extent to which employees who render, or are alleged to render, essential services may lawfully participate in industrial action. It addresses the intersection between the statutory prohibition on strikes in essential services and an employer’s burden of proof when seeking a final interdict in the Labour Court.
Secondly, the case is significant for its treatment of “composite” strike demands—some falling within the jurisdictional reach of pending proceedings and others arising from new disputes. The Court’s guidance on how such mixed demands are to be tested for lawfulness adds an important layer to South African labour-law jurisprudence, particularly for municipalities that deliver both essential and non-essential public services.
Finally, Daniels J sets out a structured approach to the admission of supplementary affidavits on the return day of a rule nisi, reinforcing procedural fairness principles in urgent Labour Court applications. The judgment will therefore serve as authority for both substantive and procedural questions that recur in municipal labour disputes.
City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Municipal Employees & Civil Servants Union and Others, Labour Court (Johannesburg) Case No 2024-098847, judgment reserved 6 September 2024, unreported
City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Municipal Employees & Civil Servants Union and Others, Labour Court (Johannesburg) Case No 2024-116893, order of Snyman AJ, 8 October 2024, unreported
City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Municipal Employees & Civil Servants Union and Others, Labour Court (Johannesburg) Case No 2025-11786, order of Tlhotlhalemaje J, 30 January 2025, unreported
Local Government: Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993
No specific Labour Court Rule was expressly cited in the text. The Court, however, proceeded in terms of its inherent powers to grant a rule nisi and to determine the admissibility of late affidavits on the return day.
The applicant municipality sought a final interdict to restrain its employees and their union from embarking on strike action scheduled to commence on 21 February 2025. A rule nisi and interim order had been granted on 25 February 2025. On the return day Daniels J considered extensive affidavits, including a supplementary answering affidavit filed by the union.
The municipality argued that the contemplated strike was unprotected for three principal reasons: most of the striking employees performed essential services; several of the demands overlapped with issues already pending before another Labour Court judge; and some demands were “socio-economic” or otherwise unlawful.
The Court partially confirmed the rule nisi. It interdicted strike action by employees engaged in designated essential services and in respect of demands already sub judice, but it refused to impose a blanket prohibition on all other members. The union’s supplementary affidavit was admitted in the interests of justice.
Whether the applicant established a clear right to final relief where only some employees performed essential services.
Whether composite strike demands render the entire strike unprotected or only the portion relating to unlawful demands.
How pending litigation on overlapping issues affects the lawfulness of subsequent strike notices.
The Court held that the applicant met the test for a final interdict only in relation to employees who were indeed engaged in designated essential services and with respect to demands that were already the subject of pending litigation before Khumalo AJ. The remainder of the proposed strike, limited to non-essential employees and new mutual-interest demands, remained lawful. Costs were reserved.
The City of Ekurhuleni is a metropolitan municipality established under the Municipal Structures Act to provide services within its jurisdiction. The first respondent, MECSU, is a registered trade union whose members include employees in waste management, traffic and policing, parks, fleet, water, roads and related departments. On 29 August 2024 the union issued a strike notice containing seven initial demands.
The municipality immediately launched urgent Labour Court proceedings under case number 2024-098847 to restrain the strike. Acting Judge Khumalo interdicted the action pending judgment. A second strike notice covering the same issues was interdicted by Snyman AJ on 8 October 2024.
On 21 October 2024 the union referred four fresh demarcated demands – the “second dispute” – to the South African Local Government Bargaining Council. After conciliation failed, a certificate of outcome was issued on 20 January 2025 together with picketing rules. Negotiations followed on 6, 13 and 19 February 2025 but broke down, prompting a fresh forty-eight-hour strike notice on 19 February 2025. The municipality responded with the present application, contending that most union members worked in essential services and that several demands were unlawful or already pending before Court.
The central legal questions were, first, whether the applicant had demonstrated a clear right to interdict the intended strike on the basis that the employees rendered essential services as defined in section 65 of the Labour Relations Act. Second, the Court had to decide whether the inclusion of allegedly unlawful or sub judice demands invalidated the entire strike notice or merely those specific demands. Third, the admissibility of the union’s supplementary answering affidavit filed after the initial return day required determination.
Daniels J began with the trite requirements for a final interdict: a clear right, actual or apprehended harm, and the absence of an alternative remedy. While the municipality averred that the individual respondents were “overwhelmingly” employed in essential services, it failed to identify each employee’s particular role. The Court found this omission fatal to a blanket interdict but adequate to restrain those employees demonstrably assigned to essential-service functions, notably waste management during public-health emergencies.
Regarding the composite nature of the strike demands, the Court declined to invalidate lawful demands merely because they appeared alongside unlawful ones. Following constitutional principles favouring collective bargaining, Daniels J severed the impugned issues—such as insourcing security personnel already in litigation before Khumalo AJ—and allowed the remainder to proceed.
On procedure, the Judge exercised a wide discretion to admit the union’s late supplementary affidavit, emphasising that labour-court proceedings should lean towards substantive justice over strict procedural formality, especially where the affidavit clarified the union’s stance on essential-service deployment and the scope of its demands.
The rule nisi was confirmed only in part. A final interdict was granted prohibiting strike action by employees engaged in designated essential services and in relation to demands falling under the matters pending before Khumalo AJ. The interim restraint was discharged in respect of other employees and the new mutual-interest demands. Costs were reserved for later determination.
The Court reaffirmed that an employer seeking a final strike interdict must furnish clear, specific evidence that the targeted employees perform essential services; generalised assertions are insufficient.
It further confirmed that unlawful or sub judice demands can be severed from a strike notice without tainting otherwise lawful demands, preserving workers’ constitutional right to strike on permissible issues.
Finally, the judgment illustrates that the Labour Court will favour the admission of supplementary affidavits on the return day where doing so promotes a full ventilation of the dispute and advances the interests of justice.