Battle over former Heathfield principal’s return

Wesley Neumann (right) with his legal representatives, advocate Rod Solomons (left) and advocate Vernon Seymour (centre), in the Labour Court in Cape Town on Friday. Neumann will not return to Heathfield High until the court rules on whether his reinstatement can proceed pending an appeal. Photo: Marecia Damons

• Former Heathfield High principal Wesley Neumann has asked the Labour Court to enforce his reinstatement despite an appeal by the Western Cape Education Department.
• Neumann argues his five-year legal battle, financial hardship and public support amount to “exceptional circumstances” justifying his immediate return.
• The Western Cape Education Department says Neumann failed to prove the matter is urgent and warned that reinstating him now could cause disruption and “operational chaos” at the school.

In a packed courtroom on Friday, former Heathfield High School principal Wesley Neumann returned to the Labour Court seeking to enforce his reinstatement.

The dispute stems from 2020, when Neumann refused to reopen Heathfield High in line with the department’s directive during covid. A disciplinary process unfolded and he was dismissed in May 2022.

In June 2023, the Education Labour Relations Council upheld his dismissal.

Neumann took the award on review and, on 5 January 2026, Acting Judge Coen de Kock overturned it, cleared him of most charges, ordered his reinstatement with backpay, and imposed a final written warning.

He was due to return to school on 2 February. But on 23 January, the Western Cape Education Department (WCED) filed a notice of intention to apply for leave to appeal, which automatically suspended the reinstatement order.

Neumann’s legal team then launched an urgent application – under section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act – to enforce the order pending appeal. To succeed, he must show exceptional circumstances, irreparable harm to himself should the order not be implemented, and no irreparable harm to the WCED if it is.

Advocate Vernon Seymour, for Neumann, told the court his client endured a five-year legal battle. “For two of those years, he had to work with a sword over his head, being a possible dismissal, and the other three years, he was dismissed and outside of his employ.”

“[WCED] filed numerous application challenges and, in some instances, abandoned them. The applicant had to endure the delays even though the respondent lost every one of those challenges. But they actually won, because they managed to delay the progress of the matter and frustrate the applicant. For most of that time, the applicant was sitting unemployed.”

Seymour said Neumann had “struggled to put food on the table” and at one stage “only managed to buy fish”.

Although now employed as a part-time councillor, the job is insecure and “could be lost and given to someone else”.

“The applicant’s ability to advance his career has been prejudiced. It’s not just about his financial recovery; it’s also about his professional recovery,” Seymour said.

He said Neumann had “massive support” from the public.

Judge Molatelo Robert Makhura repeatedly asked what made the case exceptional. “What makes the applicant so unique from thousands, if not tens of thousands, who also lost their jobs and are sitting at home? He has a job and an income. What makes his case so special?”

Responding, Seymour said, “The applicant’s case is different because of the public interest, financial struggles, the delays, and reputational harm. The respondents will suffer no prejudice if Mr Neumann returns to school. The service of teaching and learning will still be met.”

No urgency

Advocate Colin Kahanovitz SC, for the WCED, argued that the application was “fundamentally flawed,” and that Neumann had not properly made out a case for urgency under section 18 in his founding papers.

Kahanovitz said, “If you had to fail on the test for section 18, inevitably a court could also come to the conclusion that by the same test, you haven’t satisfied the urgency requirement.”

“Unless the case is exceptional, there is no weighing-up process involved,” he told the court. “They don’t get past exceptional circumstances and therefore it is not necessary or desirable for a court to get involved in the further factors.”

On claims of public support, Kahanovitz cautioned against a “populist approach”. “We are in a constitutional state. That is reliant on the rule of law, which is supreme. That means the will of the majority doesn’t ever trump the rule of law.”

The department also warned of disruption if Neumann returns to school while the appeal is pending.

Reinstatement, Kahanovitz argued, “will undermine the purpose of the appeal, potentially create operational chaos at the school, disrupt the schooling environment that has taken years to stabilise, reignite factionalism and politicisation”.

If the matter is not urgent, he said, “you have to strike it off”.

Judgment was reserved.

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

You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.

We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.