Public Servants Association and Another v National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and Others (J1527/17) [2025] ZALCJHB 540 (20 November 2025)

### Case Note
**Public Servants Association and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Others**  
**Case No:** J1527/17  
**Date:** 5 March 2021  

### Reportability
This case is reportable due to its significance in interpreting the provisions of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, particularly regarding the salary scales and cost-of-living adjustments applicable to Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions (DDPPs) and Chief Public Prosecutors (CPCs). The judgment highlights the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in reviewing administrative actions and the principles of legality that govern state decisions affecting public servants' remuneration.

The ruling also addresses procedural issues regarding delays in responding to court orders, contributing to a broader understanding of the enforcement of judicial decisions within the context of public service employment. Given its implications for administrative law and public service governance, it serves as a valuable precedent for similar disputes involving statutory interpretation and the role of the courts in supervising executive action.
### Cases Cited
- **Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (No 2)** 2015 (5) SA 600 (CC)
- **Kubyana v Standard Bank of South Africa** 2014 (3) SA 56 (CC)
- **Barnett and Others v Minister of Land Affairs and Others** 2007 (6) SA 313 (SCA)
- **Temba Big Save CC v Mlamli Kunyuza and Others** Case JA40/2015 dated 28 June 2016 (LAC)
- **Bon Accord Environmental Forum v The Department of Mineral Resources: Chief Inspector of Mines and Others** Case J2688/18 & JR1948/18 dated 13 January 2021
- **Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality** 2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA)
- **Shoba v OC Temporary Police Camp, Wagendrift Dam** 1995 (4) SA 1 (A) at 14F-I
- **Proxi Smart Services (Pty) Ltd v The Law Society of SA and Others** 2018 (5) SA 644 (GP)
- **SITA SOC Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd** 2018 (2) BCLR 240 (CC)
- **DoT v Tasima (Pty) Ltd** 2017 (2) SA 622 (CC)
- **Merafong City Local Municipality v AngloGold Ashanti Ltd** 2016 ZACC 35
- **Heath v President of the Republic of South Africa** 2018 (1) All SA 740 (WCC)

### Legislation Cited
- **National Prosecuting Authority Act** No. 32 of 1998, as amended
- **Judicial Matters Amendment Act** No. 11 of 2012
- **Labour Relations Act** No. 66 of 1995, as amended
- **Public Service Act** No. 103 of 1994
- **Correctional Services Act** No. 111 of 2008
- **Prescription Act** No. 68 of 1969

### Rules of Court Cited
- **Labour Court Rules** - Rule 12 regarding the filing of documents and condonation.
### HEADNOTE
### Summary
This application was brought before the Labour Court by the Public Servants Association on behalf of Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions and Chief Public Prosecutors, seeking to review a decision not to implement cost-of-living adjustments as mandated by the National Prosecuting Authority Act. The court held that the decision of the NPA not to implement such adjustments was lawful and dismissed the application without an order as to costs.
### Key Issues
The key issues in this case included the interpretation of section 18 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act regarding salary scales and cost-of-living adjustments, the legality of the NPA's decision not to implement these adjustments, and procedural matters concerning delays in filing responses to court orders.
### Held
The Labour Court found that the NPA's decision was consistent with the requirements of the National Prosecuting Authority Act. The court dismissed the application for review as well as the declaratory relief sought by the applicants. Furthermore, the court ruled that no costs would be awarded.
### THE FACTS
The case arose from an application by the Public Servants Association representing 112 Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions and Chief Public Prosecutors. The association sought to challenge the NPA's decision not to implement cost-of-living adjustments that had been previously set forth following amendments to the National Prosecuting Authority Act. The NPA had argued that they were entitled to determine the implementation of such adjustments, and reliance was placed on a 2017 ministerial correspondence regarding salary scales for non-Senior Management employees. The court noted issues of procedural compliance with prior orders related to the filing timelines of affidavits, which had significant bearing on the proceedings.
### THE ISSUES
The Labour Court was tasked with determining two primary legal questions: whether the decision made by the NPA concerning cost-of-living adjustments was lawful, and whether the applicants had an entitlement to the adjustments as stipulated in the National Prosecuting Authority Act. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether there was an unreasonable delay in bringing the application for review which might affect the admission of the case.
### ANALYSIS
The court's analysis focused on the interpretation of section 18 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act. The court stated that the provisions allowed the Minister of Justice to determine salary scales while also providing a mechanism for cost-of-living adjustments to align with those determined for public service personnel. The court indicated that the section allowed for flexibility in how adjustments were implemented, suggesting that the Minister's authority continued post-amendment, contrary to the applicants' interpretation that such power had ceased. 

The court considered the historical context of the Ministerial decisions and the correspondence that linked the adjustments for different categories of public servants. The court emphasized that the authority exercised remained within the scope prescribed by the law and that the NPA had acted lawfully within its administrative discretion.

Furthermore, the court addressed procedural concerns regarding delays in filing and compliance with court orders. While acknowledging the lengthy period between the initial grievances and the application to the court, it concluded that the reasons provided by the applicants justified the delay, thus allowing the matter to be entertained despite the lapse of time.
### REMEDY
The court ultimately dismissed the application for a review and declaratory relief sought by the applicants. The ruling confirmed that the NPA had acted lawfully in its decision regarding cost-of-living adjustments, and there was no legal basis for the applicants' claims for the adjustments as they pertained to section 18 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act. The court determined that there would be no order as to costs, reflecting the understanding that each party would bear its own legal expenses.
### LEGAL PRINCIPLES
This case establishes important principles regarding the interpretation of statutory provisions within the context of public service employment. It underscores the significance of legislative clarity in determining the powers of public officials, particularly as they relate to financial remuneration and adjustments. Furthermore, the ruling clarifies the applicability of the principle of legality in administrative decision-making and reaffirms that courts must ensure that public entities act within their legal authority. The judgment also contributes to the discourse on delay in justice, noting that, especially in matters of public interest, courts must find a balance between procedural delays and the imperative to uphold the rule of law.