THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
Not Reportable
Case No: 2025-167342
In the matter between:
SINQOBILE EQUESTRAIN SECURITY SERVICES Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION First Respondent
COMMISSIONER ADRIAAN JAN VAN DER WALT Second Respondent
AMCU OBO MEMBERS
and
Not Reportable
Case No: 2025-
167256
SINQOBILE EQUESTRAIN SECURITY SERVICES Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION First Respondent
COMMISSIONER MQONDISI NODONGWE Second Respondent
AMCU OBO MABHODLA AND 66 OTHERS Third Respondent
Heard: 8 October 2025
2
Delivered: 20 October 2025
Summary: Two separate urgent applications filed simultaneously, involving
the same parties, based on papers that essentially make the same allegations
and defences, for the stay of arbitration awards (Part A), pending the outcome
of applications to review and set aside the arbitration awards (Part B).
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
GANDIDZE, J
Introduction
[1] The applicant filed two separate urgent applications simultaneously, case
number 2025-167256 (Urgent 1), and case number 2025- 167342 (Urgent 2).
In both applications, the applicant sought orders:
1.1 Authorising the service of the application on L DA Inc . Attorneys, the
third respondent’s attorneys of record in terms of Rule 9(2)(c) of the
Rules of Court;
1.2 Staying the enforcement of the arbitration awards issued by the second
respondents pending the outcome of Part B of the applications:
1.2.1 Award in case number ECGQ5552- 23 dated 16 February 2024
and certified on 24 March 2025.
1.2.2 Award in case number ECGQ466- 24 dated 16 May 2024 and
certified on 8 September 2025.
1
1.3 Costs against any respondent who opposes the applications.
1.4 Further and/or alternative relief.
1 The applicant erroneously claims that the award was certified in March 2025.
3
[2] The applications were scheduled for hearing on 23 September 2025, during
court recess. AMCU’s legal representatives, LDA Inc . Attorneys, attended the
hearing after receiving a link to participate in an urgent court matter. They
argued, among other points, that there was no proper service of the
applications and that they had not been invited to Caselines to access the
pleadings online. Lagrange J issued an order postponing both applications to
8 October 2025. The applicants were ordered to effect proper ser vice of the
applications, and the parties were to file further papers on specified dates .
Additionally, AMCU was ordered not to take steps to enforce the awards
pending the finalisation of the applications.
[3] When the matter served before me on 8 October 2025, AMCU had filed
answering affidavits in both cases. The applicant did not file replying
affidavits, and in oral argument, Mr Vele confirmed that this was the approach
that the applicant preferred to take.
[4] At the hearing of the matter, only the pleadings for Urgent 2 were on
Caselines, and not those for Urgent 1. Mr Cook, representing AMCU, clarified
that the issues in both applications were the same, with the only difference
being that each application dealt with a different arbitration award. He
undertook that his instructing attorney would upload the papers related to
Urgent 1 to Caselines and urged the Court to hear oral argument in both
applications. Although not ideal, given that the matter had already been
postponed on 23 September 2025, I entertained the request in the interests of
the swift resolution of the disputes. I reserved judgment to allow the
documents for Urgent 1 to be uploaded to Caselines, which was done
immediately after oral argument. The Court is grateful to LDA Inc . Attorneys
for their assistance, as the responsibility to ensure that the papers for both
urgent applications were uploaded to Caselines lay with the applicant, the
dominus litis.
urgent applications were uploaded to Caselines lay with the applicant, the
dominus litis.
Service of the application on LDA Inc. Attorneys
[5] Lagrange J’s order addressed the issue that the application had not been
properly served. When the matter was heard on 8 October 2025, no problems
4
were raised regarding service, except that LDA Inc . Attorneys still could not
access all the documents on Caselines. When the applicant was approached
about the challenge, it had been obstructive. No replying affidavits were filed
disputing that version. This will be taken into account when deciding the costs
order to be granted.
[6] That the application was served on LDA Inc . Attorneys instead of on AMCU
does not appear to be an issue. AMCU correctly states that the founding
affidavit in Urgent 2 cites LDA Inc . Attorneys as the third respondent, rather
than AMCU on behalf of members. However, the heading of the application
correctly records the third respondent as AMCU on behalf of members.
[7] Before considering the merits of the application to stay the enforcement of the
arbitration awards, I address the preliminary points raised by AMCU.
AMCU’s preliminary points
Applications filed in the wrong Court
[8] The arbitration awards subject to the urgent applications were issued and
certified by the Gqeberha CCMA . The applicant lodged both urgent
applications with the Cape Town Labour Court. This is contrary to Rule 3(1) of
the Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Labour Court,
20242, which states that proceedings must be initiated at the seat of the court
nearest the place where the dispute, which is the subject matter of the
proceedings, arose, unless the Judge President directs otherwise. The
disputes arose in Gqeberha, where they were arbitrated. The applicant has
not claimed that the Judge President issued a directive permitting it to file the
urgent applications in this Court.
[9] However, dismissing the applications on this point without considering their
merits might give the applicant a loophole to submit new applications to the
Gqeberha Labour Court. Judicial resources are better conserved if this Court
decides the application without setting a precedent that applications filed at
decides the application without setting a precedent that applications filed at
the wrong seat contrary to the rules will always be entertained by the Court.
2 Government Notice 4775B of 2024.
5
The applicant is forum shopping and abusing Court processes
[10] The award in case number ECGQ5552- 23 was issued in February 2024, and
the award in case number ECGQ466-24 was issued in May 2024.
[11] According to AMCU, the applicant applied to the Commission for Conciliation,
Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) to rescind the award in ECGQ5552- 23,
which was dismissed. The version remains undisputed.
[12] AMCU also alleges that in August 2024, the applicant filed review applications
challenging both arbitration awards in the Johannesburg Labour Court. The
award in case number ECGQ5552- 23 was sought to be reviewed under case
number JR1347/24, and the award in case number ECGQ446- 23 was sought
to be reviewed under case number JR1374/24. AMCU further alleges that
those review applications are deemed withdrawn because the applicant did
not file the record within the prescribed time periods and did not seek AMCU’ s
consent to extend the filing deadline. The applicant did not dispute this
version, which is also accepted.
[13] Based on the above facts, the applicant’s conduct in filing the current
applications in this Court, with Part B being fresh review applications, instead
of addressing its failures regarding the review applications pending in the
Johannesburg Labour Court, amounts to forum shopping and, worse, an
abuse of the Court’s processes.
[14] AMCU also alleged that before filing the current applications, in July 2025, the
applicant filed a review application in the Cape Town Labour Court under
case number 2025- 167256, seeking to challenge the arbitration award in
ECGQ5552-23.
[15] AMCU pleaded that when the Sheriff visited the applicant’s premises in July
2025 to seize the applicant’s property to satisfy the award in case number
ECGQ5552-23, the Sheriff was provided a copy of the review application filed
in the Cape Town Labour Court, which sought to challenge the award. This
application was never served on AMCU or LDA Inc. Attorneys.
6
[16] AMCU also pleaded that w hen its legal representatives learnt of the review
application through the Sheriff, they opposed it on 26 August 2025, out of
caution. They also raised concerns about the non- service of the application,
and noted that the relevant papers had not been uploaded to Caselines.
Shabangu, the Human Resources representative at the applicant, maintained
that the Sheriff had served the review application correctly and stated that
LDA Inc. Attorneys would be invited to Caselines once the review record had
been uploaded. At the time of deposing the answering affidavits in the urgent
applications, no further communication had been received from the applicant
regarding the July review application filed in this Court.
[17] In September 2025, the applicant filed the current applications, which are
divided into two parts. Part A seeks a stay o f the enforcement of the
arbitration awards, pending the outcome of Part B of those applications. Part
B seeks a review of the arbitration awards. This effectively means that the
applications before the Court amount to a third review application concerning
the award in case number ECGQ5552- 23, and a second review application
concerning the award in case number ECGQ446- 23. This is impermiss ible. A
party cannot submit a review application in one Labour Court, allow that
review application to be deemed withdrawn, and then, to circumvent that legal
obstacle, lodge another review application in a different Court. Doing so
constitutes abuse of Court processes and a waste of judicial resources and
warrants censure. To make matters worse, the applications were set down for
hearing during the Court recess. This is totally unacceptable and an extreme
abuse of Court processes. A copy of this judgment m ust be provided to the
Registrars of all Labour Courts to prevent ongoing abuse of Court process by
the applicant and to ensure that no further review applications regarding the
same arbitration awards are accepted.
same arbitration awards are accepted.
[18] That should be the end of the current applications, but below I briefly address
the requirements for urgency and interim relief.
7
Miscellaneous points
[19] Ms. Tinyiko Shabangu (Shabangu), an employee of the applicant, deposed to
the founding affidavits in both applications. Her authority to depose to the
affidavits was challenged, and the issue could have been clarified in a
replying affidavit. No replying affidavits were filed.
[20] Shabangu also states in the founding affidavit that legal submissions are
made based on the advice of the applicant. It is not specified who within the
applicant provided the legal advice that Shabangu refers to. Shabangu, from
HR, advised herself on the matter. It is difficult to determine whether adequate
consideration of the pleadings and legal principles was given before the
current applications were filed. This is another relevant factor in determining a
costs order to be granted.
Urgency
[21] An applicant seeking the Court’s indulgence to be heard urgently must, in
terms of rule 38, set out (a) the reasons for the urgency and why urgent relief
is necessary; (b) the reasons why the requirements of the rules were not
complied with, if applicable; and (c) if a party applies in a shorter period than
that provided for in section 68(2) of the LRA, the reasons why a shorter notice
period should be permitted.
[22] The applicant submits that the matter is urgent due to an imminent risk of
execution following the certification of the arbitration awards and the
possibility that the Sheriff may attach the assets at any moment. The
submission is further that the applicant acted promptly and diligently upon
receiving notice of the certification and enforcement steps and initiated the
urgent applications.
[23] The current applications were filed around mid-September 2025.
[24] The arbitration award in case number ECGQ5552- 23 was certified in March
2025, and according to AMCU, the Sheriff made an attachment in May 2025.
Attempts to remove the applicant’s property in satisfaction of the writ of
8
execution have been thwarted because the applicant refuses the Sheriff entry
onto its premises. Since the award was certified in March 2025, and the
Sheriff attached the applicant’s property in May 2025, it cannot be said that an
urgent application launched in September 2025, and during court recess, to
stay that execution was brought without delay. Any urgency has been self-
created.
[25] AMCU admits that the award in case number ECGQ 466-24 was certified in
September 2025. AMCU also clarified that it had not instructed the Sheriff to
execute that award. Even if I accept that the execution of the award is likely to
follow certification, the applicant’s own pleaded case conflicts with the facts. It
alleged that the award was certified in March 2024, when in fact the award
was certified in September 2025.
[26] On the facts, the timing of when the awards were certified becomes irrelevant
because the review applications challenging those awards were lodged in the
Johannesburg Labour Court in 2024, and those applications are now
considered withdrawn. It is not permissible for the applicant, as it has done, to
abandon those review applications and approach a different Court with new
review applications, along with applications to stay execution. As I have
found, that conduct constitutes an abuse of Court processes.
[27] Ordinarily, matters that are found not to be urgent are struck off the roll, but in
this case, in the interests of finality, the Court will decide the matter on its
merits too.
The law in applications to stay execution
[28] I am required to determine whether the applicant has satisfied the
requirements for interim relief, namely, (a) a prima facie right, (b) irreparable
harm, (c) the balance of convenience, and (d) the absence of an alternative
remedy.
[29] These criteria should be considered within the context that the Court has
broad discretion in applications to stay, which must be exercised judicially.
9
Ultimately, the question is whether a real and substantial injustice will occur if
the stay is not granted.3
[30] In Chillibush Communications (Pty) Ltd v Gericke & others4 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.’
The arbitration awards
[31] The arbitration award in ECG Q5552-23 concerns claims for premium
allowances, made against the applicant, by several AMCU members, who are
either employees or former employees of the applicant, under section 73A of
the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 5, (BCEA). The claims were upheld in
default, as the applicant was not in attendance. This is the primary reason for
seeking to review and set aside the award.
[32] The arbitration award in case number ECGQ466- 24 upheld the claims for
bonus and accrued leave. T he applicant disputes the way the amounts
awarded to the individual employees were calculated, states that its key
witness on the leave claims was not available on the day of the arbitration
proceedings, which limited the applicant’s ability to present a complete
defence to the monetary claims, and that the CCMA lacked the jurisdiction to
enforce some of those claims.
[33] Only Part A of the applications is being considered. Despite this, Mr Vele
dedicated most of his oral submissions to criticising the awards, which
arguments might have been relevant for the determination of Part B of the
applications.
3 See: Gois t/a Shakespeare’s Pub v Van Zyl & Others (2003) 24 ILJ 2302 (LC) ; 2011 (1) SA 148
(LC), Van Rensburg and Another NNO v Naidoo and Others NNO; Naidoo and Others NNO v Van
Rensburg NO and Others 2011 (4) SA 149 (SCA); [2010] 4 All SA at para 51 and 52.
4 (2010) 31 ILJ 1350 (LC).
5 Act 75 of 1997.
10
Prima facie right
[34] The applicant asserts that it has the right to challenge the arbitration awards
by submitting review applications, as it has done.
[35] The review applications were filed in August 2024, and the applicant permitted
those applications to be deemed withdrawn. A review application that is
deemed withdrawn remains withdrawn unless an application to reinstate it is
filed and successfully granted. Instead of applying to reinstate the withdrawn
review applications, the applicant attempted to forum shop and abuse the
Court's processes by filing new review applications in a different Labour
Court. It cannot do so.
[36] The fact is that when the current applications were filed, there were no live
review applications before the Court, hence the applicant’s attempt to include
a Part B to the applications seeking to review the awards. It cannot do so. If
there are no review applications before the Court, then there is no pending
underlying cause of action. The applicant has failed to demonstrate a prima
facie right to have the awards stayed.
Irreparable harm
[37] The applicant submitted that if the enforcement of the awards is not stayed,
the pending review applications will become academic and obstruct the
applicant’s legal remedies. It further submitted that if the Sheriff proceeds with
the execution, it will interfere with its security operations, cause reputational
damage, and lead to financial prejudice that cannot be reversed even if the
review applications succeed.
[38] There are no review applications properly before the Court, so there can be
no question of review applications being rendered academic or succeeding at
some point in future.
[39] No doubt enforcing arbitration awards will harm the applicant if its assets are
attached. However, this is a consequence of having an arbitration award
11
issued against a party and not following through with a process to challenge
an award with which a party disagrees.
[40] The applicant also exaggerated the total amount owed for one of the awards,
claiming it exceeds a million rand. AMCU’s assertion that only approximately
R300 000 is owed was not disputed. The applicant inflated the amount owed
to gain the Court’s sympathy, another example of an abuse of the Court’s
processes.
Balance of convenience
[41] The applicant submits that the urgent applications are not meant to delay
justice but to prevent the premature enforcement of arbitration awards. It also
argues that the harm it would suffer if the arbitration awards are enforced
significantly outweighs the harm caused by delayed payments to the affected
individuals.
[42] Thus far, the applicant has successfully delayed the execution process
concerning the award in case number ECGQ552- 23 since March 2025 by
obstructing the Sheriff’s attempts to remove its property for sale at auction. It
has also delayed t he execution process for both awards by submitting the
current applications.
[43] By now, it should be clear to the applicant that there is no longer an obstacle
to enforcing the arbitration awards. Such enforcement is no longer premature.
The awards were issued in 2024, yet more than a year later, the affected
individuals have still not received the sums owed to them.
No alternative remedy
[44] The applicant submits that if the execution process continues, it will be forced
to liquidate assets or cease operations, which would jeopardise its ability to
continue providing services and retain staff. It also states that once execution
takes place, the harm cannot be reversed through monetary compensation,
given the size of the award and the operational impact.
12
[45] The applicant could have pursued to finality the review applications it filed in
the Johannesburg Labour Court. It abandoned those review applications, and
they are deemed withdrawn. No explanation is given for this state of affairs . It
has an alternative remedy of pursuing the review applications which are
pending in the Johannesburg Labour Court.
Conclusion
[46] The applicant has failed to make out a case for the relief it seeks. The
application was hopeless, an abuse of the Court’s processes and a waste of
the Court’s and AMCU’s resources, and an insult to the affected employees
who are owed monies, which I am sure will alleviate their financial difficulties.
This is an application that should never have come before the Court.
[47] The requirements of law and fairness dictate that the applicant should be
ordered to pay AMCU’s costs, for all the reasons mentioned above, which
need not be repeated.
[48] In the premise, I make the following order:
Order
1. The matter is not urgent.
2. The applications to stay the execution of the arbitration awards are
dismissed.
3. The applicant is ordered to pay AMCU’s costs.
_______________________
T Gandidze
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
13
Appearances
For the Applicant: Mr Vele, an employee of the applicant
For the Respondent: Mr Cook
Instructed by: LDA Inc. Attorneys