Employment Equity quotas: Last test for urgent relief now at ConCourt
If our appeal is successful, it would provide local and international businesses in South Africa with much-needed interim protection
Sakeliga and the National Employers' Association of South Africa (NEASA) have filed a final Constitutional Court application for leave to appeal the High Court’s refusal to urgently interdict South Africa’s recently implemented Employment Equity quotas.
The application, filed on 1 April 2026, is notable because it stands to exhaust our available remedies for urgent interim relief in South African courts against the government’s new racial hiring quotas.
The quotas impose strict limitations on employment by race and sex for organisations with 50 or more employees, notably limiting white male employment to only 4% in many cases, and leading in many industries to absurd and unrealistic gender hiring prescriptions.
If leave to appeal is granted, and the appeal is successful, it would provide local and international businesses in South Africa with much-needed interim protection against these disruptive, costly, job-destroying quotas.
Should the Constitutional Court refuse leave to appeal, or grant leave but the appeal is unsuccessful, businesses will be exposed to interim enforcement actions by the Department of Labour, the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC), which already requires Employment Equity compliance certificates in trade and tariff regulation, and other state entities. Businesses would therefore have to take additional precautionary measures to manage the legal, ethical, and commercial risks arising from the onerous regulatory obligations.
Other avenues for relief
Meanwhile, apart from urgent interim relief, further options – for non-urgent relief – in South African courts remain open, including:
A comprehensive review application: This is already being pursued by Sakeliga and NEASA since July 2025, and could well take years to finalise, given court delays caused by the Department of Labour. The Department’s delays appear deliberate, or at least the result of incompetence. Either way, as time passes, businesses incur high compliance costs that would prove to have been entirely unnecessary if our review application is successful. This is why seeking an urgent interim interdict is of such considerable importance.
Case-by-case defences: Should interim relief or judicial review prove unsuccessful, companies and organisations stand to mount hundreds, perhaps thousands, of legal defences for individuals and businesses who eventually experience penalisation for inevitably failing to meet absurd and unrealistic obligations.
Amid our ongoing legal proceedings about the hiring quotas, Sakeliga recommends that businesses follow a prudent, carefully considered approach of maximum appropriate non-cooperation, subject to tailored legal advice.
This approach includes avoiding, where possible, commitments to meet government targets while maintaining value-driven recruitment that respects employees, fosters workplace harmony, and mitigates harmful political interference.
Further resources
For tailored labour law advice and strategy, contact NEASA here
For more on maximum appropriate non-cooperation and the hiring quotas, click here
Summary of legal developments and avenues:
Options for urgent interim relief that have now been exhausted include:
the initial urgent application in the Pretoria High Court, as set out in Part A of our original court application (denied 28 August 2025),
an application for direct access (leave to appeal) to the Constitutional Court (refused 10 March 2026), and
an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (denied 19 March 2026).
Ongoing and possible future attempts at relief through the South African courts now chiefly include:
Urgent interim relief: An application for leave to appeal at the Constitutional Court. This is likely the last remaining avenue for interim protection against the quotas.
The review application: Filed in July 2025 and still pending, this application seeks to have the enabling provisions of the Employment Equity Act declared unconstitutional and subsequent quotas set aside.
Case-by-case litigation: Legal battles in cases of attempted government enforcement of the amended Employment Equity Act, the 2025 hiring quotas, and other relevant regulations.
