1
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN
Case no: 2026-073545
In the matter between:
NATIONAL UNION OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND
ALLIED WORKERS (NUPSAW) obo MEMBERS
Applicant
And
MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR
EDUCATION, KWAZULU NATAL
First Respondent
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT: KWAZULU NATAL
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Second Respondent
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Third Respondent
Heard: 01 April 2026
Delivered: 02 April 2026
JUDGMENT
HARVEY J
(1) Reportable: NO
(2) Of interest to other Judges: NO
Signature Date
2
Introduction
[1] This matter was heard late on 1 April 2026 and the Court undertook to send the
Order to the parties on 2 April 2026.
[2] The Order is as follows:
Order
[1] The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency
[2] There is no order as to costs.
[3] These are the brief reasons for the Order.
Background
[4] The applicants approached this Court on an urgent basis, seeking to interdict
the termination of their fixed- term contracts and the recruitment of replacement
workers, pending the outcome of a dispute currently before the CCMA. The
applicants were appointed on fixed- term contracts commencing in April 2023,
initially for a period of 24 months, thereafter extended for a further year.
[5] Knowing that their contracts would expire on 31 March 2026, they referred a
s200A dispute to the CCMA in 2025, in which they sought a determination of
their status as employees and accordingly their entitlement to employment on
an indefinite basis. It is alleged, in the founding affidavit, that that dispute has
been referred for arbitration.
Urgency
[6] The first issue to be determined is whether the matter is urgent. The principal
enquiry is whether the applicants can obtain substantial redress in due course.
In my view, they can.
Substantial redress in due course
[7] The core of the applicants’ case is that they had a reasonable expectation that
their fixed-term contracts would be renewed, said to arise from prior renewals,
alleged undertakings, the fact that the work continues, and that others are
being recruited to perform it.
3
[8] That is a conventional dispute about a dismissal of the kind contemplated in
s186(1)(b) the Labour Relations Act. Employees who allege that they have
been dismissed by reason of a failure to renew a fixed- term contract, where a
reasonable expectation of renewal is asserted, are afforded a statutory remedy.
[9] The fact that the process may take time, and that the applicants may suffer
financial hardship in the interim, does not render that remedy inadequate. That
is the position faced by all employees who pursue dismissal claims through the
statutory framework. If the applicants are ultimately successful, they may obtain
appropriate relief in due course.
[10] In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the applicants have
demonstrated that they will not obtain substantial redress in due course.
‘Self-created’ urgency
[11] In addition, the applicants culpably delayed in approaching the court. It is
precisely because they were aware that their contracts were of limited duration
and that their continued engagement was uncertain that they sought
undertakings from the employer and made the CCMA referral , in order to
secure their employment status. They ultimately approached this court for relief
on very truncated time periods at the 11th hour.
[12] The court appreciates that the explanation is that they hoped the matter would
be resolved via engagement. This explains the delay, but does not justify it. In
my view the urgency is self-created – that is, the applicants delayed culpably to
such an extent that they could have obtained substantial redress had they
acted in time.
[13] There is a further difficulty. The factual position concerning recruitment and
appointments is disputed. The respondents contend that recruitment has
progressed and that appointments have been made pursuant to an established
policy framework, while the applicants contend otherwise. Those disputes
underscore the unsuitability of determining the matter on an urgent basis.
underscore the unsuitability of determining the matter on an urgent basis.
[14] In all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the applicants have
demonstrated that they will not obtain substantial redress in due course, nor
that the matter warrants the intervention of this Court on an urgent basis.
4
Order
[15] The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency
[16] There is no order as to costs.
_______________________
SJ Harvey
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Mr Mamabolo instructed by Cecilia Sithole Attorney
For the First Respondent: Ms Seedat, State Attorney