In a critical ruling for workplace safety and constitutional rights, the Gauteng Division of the High Court has interdicted the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans from forcing military employees to relocate to the derelict Bester Building at the SA Army Headquarters in Pretoria. This decision marks a significant affirmation of occupational health rights in workplaces.

In Matthys v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans [2025] ZAGPPHC 269, the applicant, a military employee, sought urgent relief after receiving verbal orders on 3 February 2025 to relocate to the Bester Building—an abandoned structure severely damaged by fire in 2013 and unoccupied since. The building, situated at 981 Dequar Road, Salvokop, has no electricity, water, or functional sanitation. It was described by the court as resembling a structure from a war-torn zone, posing immediate and serious threats to the health and safety of occupants.

An Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) report dated the same day as the relocation order confirmed the building’s non-compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993, advising unequivocally against its occupation until all hazards were rectified.

Despite this, military leadership insisted on the relocation, prompting the applicant to bring an urgent application to halt the move, citing violations of constitutional rights including dignity, life, privacy, and a safe working environment.

The central question was whether the matter justified urgent judicial intervention under Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. In assessing urgency, the court relied on precedents such as East Rock Trading v Eagle Valley Granite and Mogalakwena Municipality v Provincial Executive Council, which emphasize that urgency must relate to the inability to obtain substantial redress at a later stage.

Acting Judge Yende found that the circumstances clearly satisfied this test. The court emphasized the severity of the health risks, the uninhabitable state of the building, and the failure of the respondents to take remedial steps despite knowing of the risks. The respondents also failed to comply with court directives and did not offer credible evidence to rebut the applicant’s claims or the contents of the OHS report.

In a strongly worded judgment, the court criticized the decision-makers’ apparent disregard for the welfare of their personnel, remarking, “No rightful thinking Army Ministry could ever allow his/her Military personnel … to risk and compromise their lives … unless he/she wants them to perish.”

The court found that the applicant had met the threshold for urgent relief. It ruled that forcing employees into such unsafe conditions would cause imminent and irreparable harm, violating their constitutional and statutory rights.

Accordingly, the court issued the following order:

• The matter was declared urgent, and the applicant’s non-compliance with standard rules of court procedure was condoned.
• An interdict was granted prohibiting the Minister and other respondents from relocating the applicant or any employees to the Bester Building pending further investigation by the Department of Labour or any related proceedings under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The respondents were ordered to pay the applicant’s legal costs on an attorney-client scale, jointly and severally.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s robust approach to enforcing occupational safety and constitutional protections in the workplace. It sends a clear message to employers—especially those in government—that disregarding statutory safety obligations and endangering employees will not be tolerated.

Moreover, the case highlights the importance of responsive and responsible leadership, especially within institutions like the military, where orders carry weight and where personnel rely on command structures to uphold their rights and safety.

Written by Jan du Toit, Director at Labour Guide