- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 seconds ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In the matter (Case B) between Fahim Docrat vs University of Cape Town (Lex Info 24 July 2026. Labour Court case no 2026-127534) the employee applied for an urgent order interdicting the employer from proceeding with a section 189 process at a time when another Labour Court matter (Case A) was pending in regard to the employer having unilaterally changed the employee’s duties.
The employer argued that, as section 191 of the LRA provides recourse for alleged unfair retrenchments, the urgent application was not warranted.
The Court (in case B) nevertheless granted the urgent interdict, stating that it was necessary in order to avoid the mooting of the pending court case (Case A).
Was this a fair and legally acceptable decision?The employer had a legitimate need to retrench. Granting the interdict had the effect of delaying the retrenchment until the initial case was heard. As labour court cases are notorious for the extended periods over which they take place, the retrenchment would have been inordinately delayed to the great cost of the employer.
The interdict should therefore not have bene granted and the employee should have been referred to the LRA’s normal provisions providing recourse for unfair retrenchments or demotions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
