THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case No: 2026-107355
In the matter between:
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AND
CIVIL SERVANTS UNION (“UNION”) Applicant
and
CITY OF EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY First Respondent
CITY MANAGER, KAGISO LERUTLA Second Respondent
ACTING CITY MANAGER TSHOLOFELO KOOPEDI Third Respondent
ACTING GROUP CHIEF FINANCE Fourth Respondent
HR HEAD OF DEPARTMENT Fifth Respondent
MARIPE MATJOKOTA Sixth Respondent
XOLANI NCIZA Seventh Respondent
SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
(1) Reportable No
(2) Of interest to other Judges: No
(3) Revised
____________ ______________
Signature Date
2
BARAGINING COUNCIL Eighth Respondent
Heard: 22/05/2026
Delivered: 18/06/2026
JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________
ORR, AJ
[1] In this matter the applicant seeks an order, on an urgent basis, staying the first
respondent (the Municipality) from implementing a settlement agreement entered
into between the Municipality and the seventh respondent (Nciza), pending the
outcome of an application to review and set aside the settlement agreement
brought by the applicant.
[2] For the purposes of this judgement the facts can be set out briefly. In March 2024
the Municipality dismissed Nciza who held the post of Divisional Head: Employee
Relations. Nciza referred disputes to the eighth respondent contending that his
dismissal was unfair and that his preceding suspension amounted to an unfair
labour practice. At the end of April 2026, the parties settled the disputes on the
basis of the reinstatement of Nciza to his previous post and the payment to him
of backpay in three tranches.
[3] The applicant is of the view that this agreement was unlawfully concluded,
primarily on the basis that the officials of the Municipality who concluded the
agreement did not have the authority to do so.
[4] The applicant alleges that it raised its concerns with the settlement agreement
with the MEC for Corporate Government and Corporate Affairs on 30 April 2026
and the Municipality on 4 May 2026. No response was received from either party
3
resulting in the applicant launching this application on 12 May 2026 and the
application to review the settlement agreement on 16 May 2026. The municipality
does not dispute any of these facts in the affidavit opposing the application to
stay.
[5] On these facts the Court is satisfied that the applicant has acted promptly and
that the matter should be dealt with as an urgent matter.
[6] At the hearing of this matter it was common cause between the parties that Nciza
had been reinstated and that some of the payments of back pay had already
been made to him. There was some dispute as to how many of the payments
had been made. For the purposes of this judgement, it is not necessary to
resolve this dispute.
[7] The respondents raised a whole host of grounds on which relief should be
refused. The Court is of the view that many of these are more properly to be
addressed in the review itself rather than this application to stay. The Court
accordingly declines to decide any of these issues nor is it necessary for reasons
that will become apparent.
[8] It is trite that any applicant for interim relief must satisfy the Court that the
applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the interim relief is not granted. On the
facts of this case the applicant must therefore satisfy the Court that, if the
implementation of the settlement agreement is not stayed, irreparable harm will
accrue to the applicant, which will not be remedied by ultimate success in the
review application.
[9] Mr. Mlungwana, a union official who appeared on behalf of the applicant, sought
initially to persuade the Court that irreparable harm would accrue to the union as
Nciza is hostile to the union. Mr. Mlungwana contended that, if the agreement
were not stayed, Nciza would take actions detrimental to the union which could
not be remedied by the ultimate setting aside of the agreement.
4
[10] Presumably realising that this was a purely hypothetical situation and that no
basis had been laid out for it in the papers, Mr. Mlungwana shifted to a position
based more on public policy. He contended that had Nciza been unlawfully
reinstated, any action which he took between now and the hearing of the review
would similarly be unlawful, with potential deleterious consequences to the
Municipality and its residents. The ultimate setting aside of the settlement
agreement would not, in these circumstances, undo that harm. Although this
harm would not necessarily be suffered directly by the applicant, the applicant
had an interest in the orderly running of the Municipality, and that would be
harmed should the agreement not be stayed.
[11] Fatal to both legs of this argument was Mr. Mlungwana’s concession that the
Court, in this application, could not undo the reinstatement of Nciza which had
already occurred. Mr. Mlungwana conceded that all the Court could do was stay
any further payment of whatever tranches remained outstanding. That being the
case the irreparable harm contended for by Mr. Mlungwana, if it exists at all,
would occur in any event as Nciza would remain in his position, regardless of
whether the application to stay was successful or not.
[12] Put differently the only possible harm that the application to stay could prevent
was the payment of further monies to Nciza by the Municipality. This ostensible
harm could definitely be rectified by relief in due course. If the applicant is
ultimately successful in setting aside the settlement agreement, the reviewing
Court could order the repayment of this money to the Municipality.
[13] For these reasons the requirement of irreparable harm is not established and the
Court cannot grant the relief sought by the applicant. The application to stay must
be dismissed. In relation to costs the parties agreed that the most appropriate
order as to costs was to reserve the costs. The Court shares this view. If the
order as to costs was to reserve the costs. The Court shares this view. If the
review proceeds the ultimate success or otherwise of the review would be a
factor to consider in whether costs should be awarded in this application.
[14] In the premise the following order is made:
5
Order
1. The application to stay the implementation of the settlement agreement
entered into between the first and seventh respondents is dismissed.
2. The costs are reserved.
_______________________
C. Orr
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
6
Appearances:
For the Applicant : A Trade Union Official
For the First to Sixth Respondent : Adv E Sithole
Instructed by : Sibanda Bukhosi Attorneys Inc
For the Seventh Respondent : In Person
For the Eighth Respondent : No appearance