Winelands Consulting

RELIEF NOT AVAILABLE PENDING UNFAIR DISMISSAL DISPUTE OUTCOME

Sabelo Mhlanga and 24 others (the Applicants) were employees of Silver Solutions 2870 (Pty) Ltd and HJB Services (Pty) Ltd (the Respondents). They were dismissed on 27 November 2025 and referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Bargaining Council. Pending that process, the Applicants launched an urgent application seeking to interdict the Second Respondent from employing replacement staff. The application was dismissed on 6 January 2026, with the question of costs reserved.

The Court considered whether the Applicants had established a legal basis for interdicting the employment of replacement staff. The Court emphasised that an employee’s right to reinstatement does not translate into a right to prevent an employer from filling vacant posts. It further analysed the vague and overly broad nature of the relief sought, the incorrect assumption regarding jurisdiction, and the absence of any precedent supporting such interdictory relief. Regarding costs, the Court evaluated the conduct of the Applicants’ attorneys, including failure to comply with procedural directives, inadequate explanations for “technical difficulties,” lack of diligence, and persistence with a legally untenable claim.

The application was fundamentally flawed and devoid of any legal foundation. The Applicants had no prima facie right to prevent the Second Respondent from employing replacement staff, as reinstatement under section 193 of the Labour Relations Act remains available even if vacancies are filled. The relief sought was incompetent, speculative, and constitutionally impermissible as it would interfere with the employer’s right to conduct business. The application was characterised as “hopeless” and unarguable, and its pursuit amounted to an abuse of court process. The Applicants’ attorneys failed in their duty to exercise professional judgment and should have refused to pursue such litigation. Their conduct in prosecuting the matter was reckless and unprofessional, justifying personal liability for costs.

An apology was insufficient at this stage. Also rejected was the argument that because the Applicants’ attorneys were prosecuting the urgent application pro bono, this should serve as a basis for not making a costs order de bonis propriis. Legal representatives are required, at all times, to maintain a level of professional independence and to earnestly and objectively consider the implications of instituting litigation before rushing off to Court.

The Applicant’s attorneys are to pay the costs of the application de bonis propriis on Scale B.

Mhlanga and Others v Silver Solutions and Another (2025/237716) [2026] ZALCJHB 181 (19 June 2026)