- The Labour Court dismissed the City of Cape Town’s application for leave to appeal after a ruling reinstated law enforcement officer Keegan Mantis.
- The court found there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion based on the facts.
- Acting Judge C May confirmed that a positive cannabis test does not automatically justify dismissal and that each case must be assessed individually.
A law enforcement officer who was dismissed after testing positive for cannabis has secured another victory after the Labour Court refused the City of Cape Town permission to appeal a ruling that reinstated him.
The dispute involves the City of Cape Town and the South African Municipal Workers Union acting on behalf of Keegan Mantis. The municipality sought leave to appeal a judgment delivered in February 2026, which upheld an arbitration award finding Mantis’ dismissal substantively unfair.
ALSO READ: Law enforcement officer reinstated after cannabis-related dismissal overturned
Acting Judge C May dismissed the application for leave to appeal on 9 June 2026, concluding that the municipality had failed to demonstrate that another court would likely reach a different outcome.
Municipality challenged the reinstatement order
The City argued that the court had exceeded its powers by effectively reinstating Mantis beyond the agreed termination date of his fixed-term contract.
The municipality also contended that the arbitrator had incorrectly relied on previous case law dealing with cannabis use in the workplace and that another court could conclude that its zero tolerance policy was justified given the high-risk nature of law enforcement work.
According to the City, the arbitrator underestimated the risks associated with a law enforcement officer testing positive for cannabis and wrongly interfered with the employer’s disciplinary decision.
The municipality further argued that there were compelling legal reasons for the Labour Appeal Court to hear the matter because of differing decisions in previous cannabis-related workplace cases.
Arbitrator found no evidence of impairment
The court revisited the arbitrator’s findings, which centred on the absence of evidence that Mantis was intoxicated or impaired while on duty.
The arbitrator found that although the City maintained a zero tolerance policy regarding drugs and alcohol, there was no evidence showing that Mantis was unable to perform his duties when he tested positive.
The arbitrator also considered that Mantis was not carrying a firearm, driving a vehicle or performing duties with direct safety implications at the time.
Importantly, the arbitrator concluded that dismissal for a first offence was too harsh under the circumstances and ordered Mantis’ reinstatement with retrospective effect and full back pay.
Court says each case must be assessed individually
Judge May rejected the City’s argument that the earlier decision in Enever created a blanket rule requiring proof of impairment in every case involving cannabis use.
The judge explained that the legal position remains fact-specific and depends on the circumstances of each employee and workplace.
Quoting from the judgment in Enever, the court noted, “A mere positive test for cannabis does not address the sobriety of the user or indicate whether they are impaired from carrying out their duties.”
May found that the arbitrator carefully evaluated the evidence and understood the dispute he was required to determine.
The judge said, “The arbitrator was acutely aware of his duties, assessed the evidence before him in its totality, considered the zero tolerance policy as against the law as it was and considered the evidence against it to determine whether dismissal was appropriate.”
Although the court acknowledged that the arbitrator may have been incorrect in some aspects of his assessment of workplace risk, it found that this was insufficient to justify setting aside the award on review.
Judge May said, “The arbitrator’s outcome therefore is not one a reasonable decision-maker could not reach.”
No reasonable prospects of success
The court found that the City had not established a sound and rational basis for concluding that another court would likely reach a different result.
Judge May said, “I am not persuaded that the Applicant’s grounds of appeal warrant a conclusion that the appeal would have any reasonable prospects of success.”
The judge further held that the arbitrator’s application of the law did not create a precedent excusing cannabis use by all law enforcement officers.
“The question remains fact-specific,” the court said. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
