Labour Court Denies Wesley Neumann’s Bid For Reinstatement Pending Appeal

Wesley Neumann in court. Photo: Marecia Damons / GroundUp

• The Labour Court has dismissed a bid by former Heathfield High principal Wesley Neumann to be reinstated while an appeal by the Western Cape Education Department is pending.
• The judge found that Neumann had failed to prove the “exceptional circumstances” required to override the automatic suspension of the order.
• The court said delays, public support and arguments about the fairness of his dismissal did not qualify as exceptional.
• Neumann will not be allowed to return to Heathfield High until the appeal process is finalised.

The Labour Court has dismissed an urgent application by former Heathfield High principal Wesley Neumann to be reinstated while an appeal by the Western Cape Education Department (WCED) is pending.

The dispute dates back to 2020, when Neumann refused to re-open Heathfield High in line with departmental directives during the covid pandemic. He was dismissed in May 2022. In June 2023, the Education Labour Relations Council upheld the dismissal. However, on 5 January 2026, acting Judge Coen de Kock overturned that award, cleared Neumann of most charges, ordered his reinstatement with back pay, and that his dismissal be substituted with a final written warning.

Neumann was due to return to work on 2 February. But when the WCED filed a notice of intention to apply for leave to appeal on 23 January, the reinstatement order was automatically suspended. Neumann then approached the Labour Court under section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act, seeking to enforce the order pending the appeal.

To succeed, he had to show exceptional circumstances, that he would suffer irreparable harm if the order was not implemented, and that the WCED would not suffer irreparable harm if it was.

Read the judgment

In his judgment Judge Molatelo Robert Makhura found that Neumann had failed to show exceptional circumstances. The judge said something “out of the ordinary or norm, something unusual, rare or distinctive” was required.

It was common, he said, in dismissal disputes, for reinstatement to be delayed by an employer’s appeal.

“There is nothing unusual, extraordinary, or unique about this case that warrants departing from the general rule that an appeal suspends the operation of a judgment,” Makhura held. “For that reason alone, the application must fail.”

Even if exceptional circumstances had been established, he said, the application would still fail on the “irreparable harm” argument.

Neumann had argued that further delay would prolong the dispute and that he would struggle financially. He said he was now employed as a part-time city councillor, earning less than a school principal, and might be unable to afford legal costs if the appeal process took years.

Makhura described the suggestion that the appeal would take years as “conjectural”. He found that Neumann could not “credibly claim financial ruin”, considering that he is currently employed and earning an income. The judge said Neumann had not disclosed what he previously earned as a principal, explained why his current income was inadequate, or shown that any delay would deprive him of meaningful relief.

If Neumann eventually succeeded in opposing leave to appeal or in the appeal itself, Makhura said, he would receive back pay and benefits in terms of the January judgment, including arrear wages from 2 February 2026 until his actual reinstatement.

The court also found that Neumann had provided no evidence that the WCED would not suffer irreparable harm if he were reinstated pending appeal.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs. As a result, Neumann will not return to Heathfield High while the WCED’s appeal process proceeds.

This article was originally published on GroundUp.

© 2026 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.