Motjamela v South African Local Government Bargaining Council & others [2026] ZALCJHB 391

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 15 October 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg

Case No: 2026-188605

Name of Judge(s): Gandidze J

Summary of Factual Matrix:

The applicant, a former fixed-term employee of George Local Municipality, pursued a dispute at the bargaining council under section 198B of the LRA seeking to be deemed permanently employed. After unsuccessful interlocutory skirmishes and a first urgent application in this Court that was struck from the roll for non-appearance, the council arbitrator on 30 July 2026, in the applicant's absence, dismissed the claim as moot because the fixed-term contracts had expired; a separate unfair dismissal dispute was later set down for 15 October 2026.

On 22 September 2026 the applicant brought an 'urgent' application to review the 30 July ruling and to stay the 15 October arbitration, alternatively for case-management directions, with a union official, Mr Thabang Motjamela, purporting to represent him. The municipality opposed, pointing to irregular enrolment, a defective affidavit, the union's lack of standing and the incomplete record. The issues were those preliminary matters, urgency, the requirements for an interim interdict and whether the review could be heard urgently.

Summary of Findings:

[16] ‘The application was enrolled for hearing without proper procedure, as no notice of motion reflects 13 October 2026 as the hearing date. The Municipality was simply informed that the matter would be heard on 13 October 2026. This is highly unprocedural and cannot be countenanced.’

[17] ‘The Municipality correctly pointed out that the founding affidavit is not properly attested, as the applicant initialled the remaining pages of the second founding affidavit, while Mr Motjamela signed the last page. Did the applicant or Mr Motjamela depose to the affidavit? This is not merely a procedural defect that the court can overlook. Without a properly attested affidavit, the Court has no application to decide.’

[18] ‘However, striking the matter from the roll for the reasons stated above will undoubtedly result in yet another urgent application, given the background information provided. It is best to decide the application on its merits.’

[19] ‘The membership form makes it clear that, when the applicant completed it and was therefore recruited, he was not employed, as required by the Constitution of the Union. Therefore, Mr Motjamela cannot represent the applicant, who was recruited contrary to the union’s Constitution.’

[20] ‘Mr Motjamela also sought to represent the applicant in the proceedings before Whitcher J on 7 August 2026. The capacity in which he would have done so is unclear, as the applicant had not completed the union subscription form by that date. It also appears that Mr Motjamela had been representing the applicant before the Bargaining Council long before 22 September 2026. On the face of it, this appears to be clear abuse of process.’

[22] ‘Preliminary issues aside, is the matter urgent? The parties were informed of the arbitration proceedings of 15 October 2026 on 4 September 2026. Yet the applicant waited until 22 September 2026 to file the urgent application. The papers provide no explanation for the delay in filing the urgent application after 4 September 2026.’

[23] ‘It was contended that the urgent application was necessary because the 15 October 2026 proceedings concerned the same or a materially connected section 198B LRA employment status dispute. This is insufficient to justify an application for interim relief to stay those proceedings. Only in oral argument did it become clear that the 15 October 2026 proceedings concerned a dismissal dispute. The 30 July 2026 ruling makes clear that this was a separate and distinct dispute from the section 198B LRA dispute that was dismissed. Accordingly, the proceedings scheduled for 15 October 2026 do not relate to a claim that has already been disposed of at the Bargaining Council and is now pending in this Court.’

[24] ‘If the proceedings were related in any way, the applicant ought to have applied to the Bargaining Council to consolidate them. Accordingly, the submissions regarding duplication of proceedings and costs, and the alleged overlap of issues, have no merit. The proceedings relating to the ruling sought to be reviewed were finalised, and that ruling dismissing the claim stands unless the court sets it aside on review. It follows that section 158(1)B of the LRA, which deals with reviews of decisions or rulings before arbitration proceedings are finalised, does not apply to the current application.’

[25] ‘Because the two claims are distinct, the applicant cannot contend that he cannot obtain substantial redress in due course unless the matter is heard urgently.’

[26] ‘The applicant has not met the requirements for an interim order, namely a prima facie right, apprehension of irreparable harm, the balance of convenience, and the absence of a satisfactory alternative remedy. In fact, the defective application does not even address these requirements.’

[28] ‘The review application cannot be heard on an urgent basis. The relevant provisions of the Labour Court Rules governing the documents to be filed in a review application have not been fully complied with. The ‘urgent application papers’ called on the Bargaining Council to file any outstanding records. This is a concession that the review application is not ripe for hearing at this stage. As recorded above, the review application's only record is the 24-page transcript. The Municipality’s contention that the Bargaining Council also filed documents that had not been uploaded to Caselines as part of the record was not disputed. Therefore, the review application is not ripe for hearing, and even if it were, it must be heard in the ordinary course, like several other reviews pending in this Court.’

[29] ‘Anticipating that the review application might not be treated as urgent, the applicant sought case management directions for the further conduct of the matter. No case has been made out for this review application to receive preferential case management treatment. It must be dealt with in the ordinary course, in accordance with the Rules of this Court, as with all other review applications pending in this Court.’

[30] ‘As regards costs, the application was ill-conceived. The affidavits allege that the applicant is self-represented, yet their drafting makes it clear that someone other than the applicant drafted them. It can only have been Mr Motjamela. This was even before the applicant purported to join the union. Had the court not found that the union lacks locus standi to represent the applicant, it would have seriously considered a costs order against the union.’

Relief: The application was held not to be urgent, and the review was directed to proceed in the ordinary course. The application to stay, postpone or interdict the arbitration proceedings of 15 October 2026 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Judgment on SAFLII