A Cape Town Labour Court judge granted an urgent interim interdict to prevent the continuation of consultation processes under Section 189 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) by the University of Cape Town (UCT). This process could have led to the dismissal or demotion of the employee.
Filing of the claim and grounds
The decision was made after UCT employee Fahim Dokrat filed an urgent application in the Cape Town Labour Court seeking an interim interdict and restraint on UCT's activities. He sought a stay of the process until the current litigation was concluded.
According to court documents, the litigation concerns alleged unfair labour practices related to professional detriment, which constitutes a violation of the Protected Disclosures Act (PDA), as the employee made a protected disclosure defined in this Act. UCT opposes this application.
Course of proceedings and claims
Dokrat received the initial Section 189 notification on May 8, 2026, four days before the start of the litigation. This notification related to a restructuring in the Department of Development and Alumni, where Dokrat works. As part of this restructuring, his position as Senior Manager of Corporate, Endowment and Individual Giving (Level 12) was abolished and replaced with the position of Philanthropy Manager (Level 11).
The purpose of the Section 189 LRA consultation was to obtain Dokrat's agreement to accept the Philanthropy Manager position, otherwise he faced dismissal. On May 12, 2026, Dokrat wrote to UCT, noting that this was his first Section 189 LRA consultation and that it was not a continuation, as stated in the notice. He also indicated that the litigation would address his disputes, including the alleged demotion, and therefore the Section 189 LRA process should be stayed.
After UCT did not respond to his letter, the court hearings commenced on May 13 and 14, 2026, and are ongoing, awaiting new dates.
Development of the dispute and court ruling
On May 19, 2026, Dokrat received an email from UCT notifying him of the commencement of the Section 189 process the following day. On the same day, Dokrat sent a letter to UCT stating that they had failed to consider his objection that the matter was being addressed in the litigation. He also requested a postponement due to his lawyer's unavailability on such short notice.
UCT responded to Dokrat, stating that the litigation was unrelated to the ongoing Section 189 process and that he was acting 'unreasonably'; the consultation was rescheduled for May 22, 2026. Dokrat replied, reiterating his concerns about the consultation and objecting to the process facilitator. UCT informed Dokrat that he could present his arguments at the May 22 consultation, and that the word 'continuation' in the new Section 189 LRA notice was irrelevant.
According to court documents, Dokrat informed his lawyer that the consultation would proceed. He was advised to attend the consultation alone and voice his objections, as his lawyer could not advise him until May 27. At the meeting, he objected to the facilitator, whom he accused of bias, and stated that the consultation process could not continue given the litigation.
The facilitator ruled that UCT must provide reasons for the proposed restructuring by June 1, and Dokrat must respond by June 8. On May 27, Dokrat consulted with his lawyer, and they agreed to send a letter to UCT requesting a stay of the consultation process and a response by May 28. Although the letter was sent, UCT did not respond by the set deadline.
Dokrat met with his lawyer on May 29 to prepare urgent documents. During the consultation, Dokrat received correspondence from UCT stating that the Section 189 LRA consultation scheduled for June 1 would be postponed to June 8 to explore settlement possibilities. Dokrat's lawyer wrote to UCT requesting assurance that the consultation process would not take place on June 8. Since no response was received, the application was lodged and registered on June 2.
At the hearing on June 11, the court ruled that UCT should not proceed with the Section 189 LRA process until a decision was made on this application. UCT argued that the application, filed with seven days' notice and demanding a final decision, was brought in extreme urgency, and that Dokrat failed to demonstrate urgency. UCT also presented that in June 2025, in another case, Judge Fehane ruled that Dokrat had known about the possible demotion since July/August 2024. It was also argued that Judge Fehane ruled that Dokrat failed to prove that he would not receive substantial compensation in due course if his application was not heard urgently, and that the application was frivolous, unfounded, and hopeless, and that it caused unnecessary commotion, among other things, alleging various protected disclosures.
UCT also insisted that Dokrat could receive substantial compensation in due course, considering his dispute in the CCMA, where he contested the demotion. In making the ruling, Judge Tapiva Gandidze noted that Judge Fehane's decision pertained to a different application heard in a different case, and thus the findings made there were only applicable to that case. Judge Gandidze emphasized: 'This is a different application that must be decided on its own facts.' She noted that Dokrat sought temporary relief, not final relief, as UCT claimed. Judge Gandidze explained that the applicant for temporary relief must demonstrate a clear, albeit questionable, apprehension of irreparable harm if the interdict is not granted, such that the balance of convenience tips in favour of granting the temporary relief, and that there is no other satisfactory remedy.
Judge Gandidze concluded that everything Dokrat requested at this stage was temporary relief pending the conclusion of the litigation. 'He has demonstrated a clear right to such relief, even if that right is questionable, because the court must determine whether Dokrat suffered professional detriment, including demotion, for making protected disclosures. Therefore, the Section 189 LRA process, which could lead to the implementation of the demotion before the conclusion of the litigation, must be prohibited until the conclusion of these proceedings.'
>}
