THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case no:2025-121894
In the matter between:
SUSANNA CHRISTINA LOUW Applicant
and
KARABO SEKORI Respondent
Heard: 8 August 2025
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to
the parties' legal representatives by email, and by publication on
Caselines. The date for hand- down is deemed to be 1 2 September
2025.
Summary: An application to stay the enforcement of an arbitration award
pending the outcome of a review application, and an application to be
exempted from furnishing a bond of security as contemplated in section 145(7)
and (8) of the LRA as she is under debt review.
_______________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
_______________________________________________________________
GANDIDZE J
Introduction
2
[1] [1] This is an urgent application by an unrepresented litigant, Susanna Louw
(Louw), to stay the enforcement of a varied arbitration award issued by the
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) on 27 June
2025, in case number GAJB 9253- 25. The award is against Louw and in
favour of the respondent, Karabo Sekori (Sekori). The stay is sought pending
the outcome of a review application that Louw filed in this Court in early July
2025, under Case Number 2025-102566.
[2] Louw also seeks an exemption from filing a bond of security in the review
application. Bonds of security are filed in accordance with 143 (7) and (8) of
the Labour Relations Act,
1 (LRA), which provides that the filing of a review
application does not stay the enforcement of an arbitrati on award unless a
bond of security is filed.
[3] Sekori did not file opposing papers , nor was there an appearance for her
when the matter was heard.
Background
[4] After Louw’s live -in domestic worker, Martha Mochoane (Mochoane),
experienced eyesight problems, an arrangement was made for Sekori, the
granddaughter, to move onto Louw’s premises to work in Mochoane’s place.
This occurred around June 2024. Less than a year later, in March 2025,
following a disagreement between Sekori and Louw, Sekori left Louw’s home
and never returned. This was followed by a referral to the CCMA, in which
Sekori claimed wages owed to her.
[5] During the arbitration proceedings, Louw denied that Sekori was her
employee but stated that Mochoane, whom she paid R1 500 per month, was.
Louw also alleged that Sekori did not work more than five hours a day.
[6] The commissioner appointed to arbitrate the dispute found that Sekori was
Louw’s employee and that she worked more than five hours a day. He also
found that the monthly salary of R1,500 paid to Sekori was below the amount
1 Act No 66 of 1995 (as amended).
3
prescribed by the National Minimum Wage Act ,2 (NMWA) Consequently, for
the period from July 2024 to March 2025, the commissioner ordered Louw to
pay Sekori a total of R35,100.68, representing the difference between the
R1,500 she received and the minimum wage she should have earned,
payable by 27 June 2025.
The review application
[7] The review papers were not presented before the Court; however, in the
founding affidavit filed in the stay application, Louw raises several complaints
about the award. She alleges, among other things, that the commissioner
ignored her entire version and preferred Sekori ’s account. She states that the
employment relationship was between her and Mochoane, not Sekori . Louw
insists that Sekori performed only a few chores each day and did not work the
whole day because she was studying. The salary was paid to Mochoane, but
in some months, Mochoane would ask Louw to give Sekori a share of the
salary. Additionally, she complains that the award includes remuneration for
December 2025, even though Sekori did not provide any services in that
month. She also claims that in March 2025, Mochoane and Sekori left Louw’s
home to attend a funeral at their own residence and never returned, thus she
considers them to have absconded. Louw states that had she known that
Sekori wanted to be her employee, she would have informed both her and
Mochoane to leave, as she could not afford them. She is the sole breadwinner
and looks after two foster children and a nephew.
[8] There are also allegations that the commissioner had already determined the
outcome of the arbitration proceedings even before they began.
[9] Against that background, I now turn to the application and will first address
whether the application is urgent.
Urgency
2 Act No 9 of 2018.
4
[10] An applicant that seeks the Court’s indulgence to be heard on an urgent basis
must, in terms of rule 38, set out (a) the reasons for urgency and why urgent
relief is necessary; (b) the reasons why the requirements of the rules were not
complied with, if that is the case; and (c) if a party brings an application in a
shorter period than that provided for in terms of section 68(2) of the LRA, the
reasons why a shorter period of notice should be permitted.
[11] The varied award was issued on 27 June 2025. The review application was
filed on 4 July 2025, and the current application was filed on 18 July 2025,
with a hearing scheduled for 8 August 2025.
[12] The varied award records that Sekori may enforce it if there is non-
compliance. Louw’s uncontested version was that Sekori informed her that
she would seek to enforce it and that this had been repeated on several
occasions. Louw also states that she had suggested paying the owed amount
in instalments, but Sekori had not responded.
[13] It is unclear whether Sekori has initiated the process to certify the arbitration
award under section 143 of the LRA. Louw’s account that Sekori has on
several occasions threatened to enforce the award is accepted. The other
uncontested version is that Sekori has not responded to Louw’s requests for a
meeting to discuss the matter and possible resolution. This suggests that
Sekori intends to proceed with enforcement.
[14] Louw did not need to wait until the enforcement process had begun to bring
this application. She proactively submitted the application based on the
threats she received and Sekori ’s refusal to meet with her to discuss a
payment plan. After the varied arbitration award was issued, she filed the
review application the following week, followed by the current application two
weeks later. It is clear from the sequence above that Louw did not remain
passive after the varied arbitration award was issued. The matter is therefore
urgent and will be heard accordingly.
urgent and will be heard accordingly.
[15] [15] I now turn to the legal principles relevant to applications seeking to stay
the enforcement of an arbitration award.
Legal principles
5
[16] This court has the powers, in terms of section 145(3) of the LRA , to stay the
enforcement of an arbitration award pending its decision in a review
application.
[17] As Louw sought an order staying enforcement pending the outcome of a
review application, the relief is interim in nature. The requirements for interim
relief are (a) prima facie right, (b) reasonable apprehension of irreparable
harm, (c) no satisfactory remedy, and (d) balance of convenience. These
requirements must be assessed against the context that the Court has a wide
discretion in applications to stay, which discretion must be exercised judicially.
Ultimately, the question is whether real and substantial injustice will result if
the stay is not granted.
3
[18] In Chillibush Communications (Pty) Ltd v Gericke and Others 4 the Court
stated thus:
‘[18] … The most important consideration in the exercise of the discretion is
whether there is a pending underlying cause of action arising from the
arbitration award.’
[19] Louw also sought an exemption from having to file a bond of security in
respect of the review application. Filing a bond of security has the effect that
the enforcement of an arbitration award is stayed pending the outcome of a
review application. In terms of section 145(8) of the LRA , the Court may
‘direct otherwise’, and absolve a party from providing security.
[20] In City of Johannesburg v SAMWU obo Monareng 5, the court stated that in
considering such applications, one must have regard to the particular
circumstances of the case as well as considerations of equity and fairness to
both the employer and the employee.
3 See: Gois t/a Shakespeare’s Pub v Van Zyl and Others (2003) 24 ILJ 2302 (LC), Van Rensburg and
Ano NNO v Naidoo and Others NNO; Naidoo and Others NNO v Van Rensburg NO and Others 2011
(4) SA 149 (SCA) at para 51 and 52.
4 (2010) 31 ILJ 1350 (LC).
5 (2019) 40 ILJ 1735 (LAC) para [19].
6
Analysis
[21] Louw has filed a review application but has not provided a bond of security.
Had she submitted a bond, this application would have been unnecessary.
She requests an exemption from furnishing the bond, claiming she cannot
afford it.
[22] Louw attached a letter from Stonebridge Debt Management, dated 2 May
2025, to her papers. The letter was addressed to all creditor providers and
credit bureaus. It states that Louw had applied for debt review under the
National Credit Act
6 (NCA). The letter also informs all credit providers that,
upon receipt, they must not take further action against Louw unless the debt
counsellor rejects her application for debt review or she defaults on an
obligation in terms of a debt arrangement. According to Louw, both the
commissioner who arbitrated the dispute and Sekori were made aware of this
letter.
[23] As Louw is under debt review, she is clearly not in a position to file a bond of
security as she lacks the means. Therefore, s he is exempted from filing a
bond of security in the review application filed in this court under case number
2025-102566
[24] The next question is whether the court should exercise its discretion and grant
the stay. One of the considerations, if not the most important one, is whether
there is an underlying cause of action.
[25] In this case, there is a review application. The review court will consider the
merits of that application and make a final decision, but prima facie, it is not
my view that Louw’s case on review is hopeless. If the award is enforced, and
the court hearing the review application sets that award aside, Louw would
suffer irreparable harm, as Sekori is unlikely to be able to repay the funds that
would have been paid to her in satisfaction of the award.
[26] I am satisfied that Louw has a prima facie right to the relief she seeks, that
she will suffer irreparable harm if the arbitration award is enforced while a
review application is pending, the balance of convenience favours granting
review application is pending, the balance of convenience favours granting
6 Act No 34 of 2025.
7
the relief sought rather than denying it, and Louw has no satisfactory remedy
other than approaching this court for relief. Therefore, the stay is granted
pending the outcome of the review application.
[27] In the circumstances, I make the following order:
Order
1. The matter is urgent.
2. The applicant is exempted from filing a bond of security in the review
application filed under case number 2025-102566.
3. The enforcement of the arbitration award issued by the CCMA in case
number GAJB 9253-25 is stayed pending the finalisation of the review
application under case number 2025-102566
4. There is no order as to costs.
_______________________
T Gandidze
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances
For the Applicant: In person
For the Respondent: No appearance