King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality and Others v Hintsa and Others (323/2024) [2025] ZASCA 165 (31 October 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality & Others v Hintsa and Others
Citation: (323/2024) [2025] ZASCA 165
Date: 31 October 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable primarily due to its significance in interpreting local government resolutions and the implications of such interpretations on employees’ rights. The matter revolves around the validity of back-pay processes made by a municipal council and clarifies the boundaries of legal standing for former employees in engagements with local government bodies. The Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in this case sets a precedent regarding how municipal councils are held accountable for their resolutions and the extent to which affected employees can claim redress.

Cases Cited

1. Cordiant Trading CC v Daimler Chrysler Financial Services (Pty) Ltd [2005] ZASCA 50; 2005 (6) SA 205 SCA; [2006] 1 All SA 103 (SCA).
2. Durban City Council v Association of Building Societies 1942 AD 27.
3. Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality [2012] ZASCA 13; 2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA); [2012] 2 All SA 262 (SCA).

Legislation Cited

• Superior Court’s Act 10 of 2013

Rules of Court Cited

• None cited.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeal was tasked with interpreting a resolution adopted by the King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality’s council regarding back-pay owed to municipal employees. The case involved a dispute over whether the resolution applied to certain former employees and whether those employees had the right to compel the municipality to comply with its own resolution. The court found in favor of the respondents, confirming that they were indeed entitled to the benefits of the resolution and had the legal standing to initiate the proceedings.

Key Issues

The key legal issues presented in this case included:

• The interpretation of the municipal council's resolution regarding back-pay for employees.
• The determination of whether the respondents fell within the class of “affected employees” entitled to back-pay.
• The legal standing of former employees in compelling the municipality to comply with its resolutions.

Held

The court held that the resolution adopted by the municipal council indeed applied to the respondents, classifying them as “affected employees.” Consequently, it confirmed their legal standing to initiate proceedings against the municipality for non-compliance with the resolution regarding back-pay.

THE FACTS

The background of this case centers around the King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality and its efforts to implement a standardized compensation system for municipal workers as outlined in a collective bargaining agreement. Following internal discussions and classifications of employees, on May 29, 2018, the municipality approved a resolution aimed at normalizing salary scales and providing full back-pay to all affected employees.

The respondents, former employees of the municipality who left service between 2003 and 2017, believed they were included in the term “all affected employees.” After the council failed to fulfill its resolution, the respondents initiated proceedings in the Eastern Cape High Court seeking to compel compliance and arguing that the municipality's failure to act was unlawful.

The municipality contended that the resolution intended to benefit only those currently employed and that the respondents lacked the requisite legal standing to challenge the decision. However, the High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, leading to the municipality appealing this decision before the Supreme Court of Appeal.

THE ISSUES

The legal questions that the court needed to address included:

• Did the May 29, 2018, resolution apply to the respondents?
• Did the respondents demonstrate legal standing necessary to challenge the municipality’s conduct?
• Did the High Court exercise its discretion properly in granting the declaratory relief sought by the respondents?

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court of Appeal focused its analysis on the interpretation of the 2018 resolution. The court established that proper interpretation required understanding the context, intent, and specified categories outlined within the memorandum prepared by the municipality's Executive Mayor. It concluded that the descriptions given in the memorandum explicitly categorized the respondents as affected employees.

In examining the municipality’s conduct, the court highlighted that there had never been a communication indicating the exclusion of the respondents from the benefits of the resolution. The municipality's assurances to the respondents regarding future payments further solidified the notion that they were entitled to back-pay. The court noted that a sensible interpretation of the resolution should be prioritized to reflect its true purpose, which was the equitable treatment of all employees affected by the job evaluation.

The municipality’s argument regarding a lack of standing under section 21(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act was also addressed, affirming that the respondents qualified as interested parties within the meaning of the statute. The court asserted that legal standing should not be measured strictly by current employment status but also by the obligations outlined by the council’s resolutions.

REMEDY

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the municipality's appeal and upheld the High Court's order, thereby requiring the municipality to comply with its own resolution regarding back-pay for the respondents. Additionally, the municipality was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal, which included the costs for two counsel.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The court established several key legal principles through its judgment, including:

• The interpretation of municipal council resolutions should be grounded in the context and intent behind the resolutions, emphasizing equitable treatment.
• Former employees can possess the legal standing to challenge municipal decisions if they are classified as affected employees under relevant resolutions.
• The discretion afforded to the High Court under section 21(1)(c) obliges the court to consider and decide on the declarations sought by those with identified interests, thereby emphasizing the judicial commitment to ensuring fair administrative practices.

Through this judgment, the court has reinforced the principle that municipalities must adhere to their resolutions and offered a pathway for affected personnel, ensuring that their rights are recognized and upheld against bureaucratic inertia.