IMATU obo Moses & others v City of Cape Town (Leave to Appeal) [2026] ZALCCT 176

Seat of Court: Labour Court, Cape Town

Date Delivered: 8 October 2026

Case No: C447/2024

Name of Judge(s): Gandidze J

Factual Summary:

Fourteen members of IMATU, employees of the City of Cape Town, claimed in contract that they were entitled to be paid for overtime and that the City had breached their contracts by unilaterally ceasing to pay it. On 7 August 2026 the Labour Court dismissed the claim, holding that the term relied upon did not exist, and ordered costs against the union.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal, contending that the letters of appointment, read with the contracts and policies, were ambiguous in providing for terms 'as amended from time to time', that the City could not unilaterally remove overtime pay, that the court had wrongly held the constitutional right to fair labour practices to have been unpleaded, and that the matter was of wider importance. The City opposed, pointing to how the plaintiffs' case had evolved and to the concessions made at trial, and sought costs against IMATU.

Legal Questions Considered:

[3] ‘As this court is a superior court, section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act[2] (SCA), sets out the grounds on which leave to appeal may be granted. These include, inter alia, a reasonable prospect of success and a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.’

[18] ‘The plaintiffs brought a contractual claim. They were required to demonstrate an express, implied, or tacit term of the contract. They failed to identify the term on which they relied to claim payment for overtime worked. In their application for leave to appeal, the plaintiffs submit that the real question before the Court a quo was not whether they had a right to overtime pay, but whether the City was permitted to deprive them of that right. This departs from the case pleaded at trial. By the time the trial concluded, the plaintiffs had conceded that the City could amend its policies but could not require the plaintiffs to work overtime. The question the plaintiffs are not addressing is whether they had a contractual right to overtime pay. They had to prove that contractual right. They failed to do so.’

[19] ‘Even worse, the plaintiffs' claim keeps evolving, as the City correctly points out. The City also correctly points out that the meaning the plaintiffs seek to ascribe to the phrase ‘as amended from time to time’ will result in absurdity.’

[20] ‘The matter is not sufficiently important to warrant the appeal court’s attention. The plaintiffs are only a handful of IMATU members. SAMWU also organises at the City, and if the issue were as important as the plaintiffs submit, it would have joined IMATU’s cause. […] Having considered all the grounds on which leave to appeal is sought, and approaching the matter with intellectual humility and integrity, neither over zealously endorsing the correctness of the decision that has been reached, nor over anxiously granting leave to appeal[9], this application must fail as there is no reasonable prospect that the appeal court would reach a different decision on the basis of the plaintiffs' contentions or the factual matrix.’

[21] ‘The claim was not frivolous. IMATU’s members are justifiably aggrieved by the City’s insistence that they work overtime without remuneration, when for several years they were paid overtime. The claim failed only because the contractual term relied upon was found not to exist. On those facts, in my view, it is neither fair nor in accordance with the law to impose a costs order on IMATU, as was done in the trial proceedings.’

Relief: Leave to appeal was refused. There was no order as to costs.

Judgment on SAFLII