Singamandla and Others v South African Public Workers Trade Union and Others (2025/085193) [2025] ZALCJHB 343 (1 August 2025)

Singamandla and Others v South African Public Workers Trade Union and Others (2025/085193) [2025] ZALCJHB 343 (1 August 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to an interdict restraining the strike action. The union's request for organisational rights did not comply with section 21(2) of the LRA, and the employer's referral to arbitration did not trigger the prohibition on strike action under section...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 343
Parties
Applicant: Singamandla; Applicant: Adfusion Contract Management Services; Applicant: Isilumko; Applicant: Labour Flow; Respondent: South African Public Workers Trade Union; Respondent: Foster Khoza and Others
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2025
Case Number
2025/085193
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Confirm Rule Nisi and Interim Order
Outcome
Interim order confirmed only in respect of picketing and violence; strike action not interdicted; no order as to costs.
Judges
R Daniels
Legal Topics
Organisational Rights, Protected Strike, Interdict, Picketing Rules, Violence and Intimidation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Organisational Rights Protected Strike Interdict Picketing Rules Violence and Intimidation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Singamandla

Applicant

Adfusion Contract Management Services

Applicant

Isilumko

Applicant

Labour Flow

Applicant

South African Public Workers Trade Union

Respondent

Foster Khoza and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Confirm Rule Nisi and Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a final interdict restraining strike action by the respondent union.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for confirming the interim order interdicting picketing and violence have been met.
  3. 3 Whether the employer's request for arbitration in terms of section 21(7) of the LRA precludes protected strike action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to an interdict restraining the strike action. The union's request for organisational rights did not comply with section 21(2) of the LRA, and the employer's referral to arbitration did not trigger the prohibition on strike action under section 65(1)(c). Section 65(2)(a) expressly permits strike action in pursuit of organisational rights, and the constitutional right to strike must be interpreted in the least restrictive manner. The applicants' attempt to frustrate the right to strike by hastily referring the dispute to arbitration was rejected. However, the absence of picketing rules justified an interdict against...

Court Disposition

Interim order confirmed only in respect of picketing and violence; strike action not interdicted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Prayers 2.2, 2.2 and 2.3 of the interim order issued by Prinsloo J on 6 June 2025 are made final.
  • The CCMA is directed to issue picketing rules as a matter of urgency.