The Gauteng Division of the High Court has dismissed an urgent application brought by the National Employers’ Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga NPC, who sought to halt the implementation of newly introduced sectoral numerical targets under the Employment Equity Act (EEA).
Background
Section 15A of the EEA, effective from 1 January 2025, empowers the Minister of Employment and Labour to determine sector-specific numerical targets aimed at improving equitable representation in the workforce. On 15 April 2025, the Minister published binding targets for 18 economic sectors, requiring designated employers to integrate these into their employment equity plans from 1 September 2025.
NEASA and Sakeliga challenged this exercise of statutory power, arguing that the targets were arbitrary, inadequately consulted upon, and potentially discriminatory, particularly against women. They sought urgent interim relief (Part A) in the form of an interdict or suspension of the Minister’s decision, pending a broader judicial review (Part B).
The Court’s Findings
Justice Moshoana declined to grant the requested relief, stressing three key points:
- Interdict Not Appropriate
The Court held that an interdict cannot undo an act already performed. Since the Minister had already exercised his powers in April 2025, the proverbial “horse had bolted.” Any grievance against the legality of that act must be pursued through judicial review, not an interim interdict. - Suspension Beyond the Court’s Powers
The Court emphasised the principle of separation of powers, noting that suspending the lawful exercise of executive authority would amount to judicial overreach. Section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution, which allows for just and equitable remedies in constitutional disputes, was found inapplicable because the present application did not raise a constitutional matter but rather an administrative challenge. - Consultation and Alleged Discrimination
On consultation, the Court found that the Minister had complied with section 15A by publishing draft notices in 2023 and 2024 and engaging stakeholders. The process, though contested by the applicants, satisfied the statutory requirements. On discrimination, the Court distinguished between numerical targets (set by the Minister) and numerical goals (set by employers in their equity plans). It held that any potential disadvantage to women would stem from employer-set goals, not the Minister’s sectoral targets. Employers, moreover, retain the right to justify deviations from targets under section 42(4) of the EEA.
Costs
Although the respondents prevailed, the Court ordered each party to bear its own costs, citing the importance of the matter and the likelihood of further litigation when the review application (Part B) is heard.
Significance
The ruling reinforces the limits of interim interdicts in administrative law disputes, particularly where statutory powers have already been exercised. It also highlights the judiciary’s caution in intervening in executive functions unless a clear constitutional breach is established.
Employers must therefore prepare to comply with the sectoral targets from 1 September 2025, while any substantive challenge to the legality or rationality of the Minister’s decision will be tested in the forthcoming review proceedings.
