IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case no: 2025-097490
In the matter between:
VUKANI DANIEL MNGWEVU First Applicant
MXOLISI SKHOSANA Second Applicant
INNOCENT LEBOGANG KUNENE Third Applicant
SELINA MPHAHLELE Fourth Applicant
NTOKOZO KHUMALO Firth Applicant
and
GNG RISK MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY CC First Respondent
TRACEY MAPHOSA Second Respondent
Heard: 18 February 2026
Delivered: 09 March 2026
JUDGMENT
MABASO, AJ
Introduction
(1) Reportable: NO
(2) Of interest to other Judges: No
Signature Date
2
[1] The First to Further Applicants ("the Applicants") launched an ex parte
application to this Court seeking an order to declare both G NG Risk
Management and Security CC (“the First Respondent") and Ms Tracy
Maphosa ("Ms Maphosa") in contempt of Court for their alleged failure to
enforce part of the terms of a certified arbitration award and the Respondents
be sanctioned with a fine that this Court deems appropriate, and that Ms
Maphosa be incarcerated for a period the Court deems appropriate. The rule
nisi was issued on 08 August 2025, returnable on 18 February 2026. Before
this date, the Respondents delivered an answering affidavit attempt ing to
demonstrate good cause.
Evidence and analysis
[2] The Applicants were dismissed by the First Respondent, resulting in them
declaring an unfair dismissal claim to the Commission for Conciliation,
Mediation and Arbitration ( “the CCMA”) against the First Respondent .
Following a lengthy process, the CCMA appointed an arbitrator to arbitrate the
dispute. As the First Respondent was absent on the set down date, t he
Arbitrator subsequently issued a default arbitration award in favou r of the
Applicants, inter alia , directed that the First Respondent reinstate the
Applicants. Upon becoming aware of the arbitration award, the First
Respondent attempted, albeit unsuccessfully , to launch a rescission
application against it. Subsequently, the Applicants successfully approached
the CCMA director to obtain certification in accordance with Section 143 of the
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.
[3] The First Respondent initiated a review application against the rescission
ruling. The Applicants concerned about what they perceived as the inordinate
delay in the prosecution of this review application, and they then successfully
launched an application to dismiss the same. Subsequently, the First
Respondent launched a rescission application against the order dismissing
the review application. The affidavit of the rescission application is
the review application. The affidavit of the rescission application is
incorporated into the answering affidavit before this Court, asserting that the
order for dismissal of the review was made erroneously. Accordingly, the
3
First Respondent argues that they are not refusing to comply with the
arbitration award, as they are actively pursuing the rescission application.
[4] Before this Court, it is acknowledged by all the parties that a certified
arbitration award exists, the Respondents are aware of this arbitration award,
as it was duly served upon the First Respondent, and there has been a failure
to comply with the certified arbitration award by the First Respondent.
Consequently, the presumption of mala fide resistance to comply with the
certified arbitration award is established, unless the Respondents can lead
evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.
[5] It is contended by the First Respondent that they cannot be held in contempt
due to the existence of a pending application for rescission concerning the
Order that dismissed the review application. The Applicants assert that this
does not impede enforcing the certified arbitration award and that the
Respondents' application for rescission constitute s yet another strategy to
delay compliance with the arbitration award.
[6] In considering these contempt proceedings, this Court adopts the approach
hereinafter.
[7] The First Respondent in this matter is a juristic entity, whereas Ms Maphosa is
a natural person. The certified arbitration award was issued specifically
against the former , which the Applicants identify as a company duly
incorporated under the laws of the Republic of South Africa. Notably, this
certified arbitration award was not directed at Ms Maphosa, nor were there
any claims alleging that she interfered with its enforcement. However, she is
mentioned in the capacity of "co- owner and/or manager of the first
respondent." Detectably, there is no request for the joinder of Ms Maphosa
herein, considering that this Court cannot find a person against whom there is
no order. As a consequence, it would be inappropriate for this Court to hold
an individual accountable who was not expressly directed by the CCMA ,
an individual accountable who was not expressly directed by the CCMA ,
through the arbitration award, to undertake any action, and to impose
imprisonment on her.
4
[8] The Constitutional Court in Matjhabeng Local Municipality 1 said the following
regarding contempt of Court proceedings where an order is specifically
against a juristic person, not about a person in charge of the same:
“Bearing in mind, that the persons targeted were the officials concerned − the
Municipal Manager and Commissioner in their official capacities − the non-
joinder in the circumstances of these cases, is thus fatal. Both
Messrs Lepheana and Mkhonto should thus have been cited in their personal
capacities − by name − and not in their nominal capacities. They were not
informed, in their personal capacities, of the cases they were to face,
especially when their committal to prison was in the offing. It is thus
inconceivable how and to what extent Messrs Lepheana and Mkhonto could,
in the circumstances, be said to have been in contempt and be committed to
prison.”
2
[9] Furthermore, this Court takes into account that Rule 58 of the Rules of this
Court stipulates that when a contempt application is initiated, a director of the
relevant entity must be cited. However, this Rule does not imply that such an
individual must not be joined in the proceedings , especially if there are no
specific allegations , indicating that a person intentionally interfered with the
enforcement of the arbitration award, are made against them. Therefore, this
Court concludes that Ms Maphosa is not guilty of contempt.
[10] This Court has evaluated the explanation provided by the First Respondent
regarding their non- compliance at this stage, as contained i n their answering
affidavit, which incorporates the affidavit in the pending rescission application.
Without rendering a decision on the rescission matter, this Court, upon
perusal of the rescission affidavit ,
3concludes that t he First Respondent has
demonstrated that there is no evidence of mala fides on its part for failure to
comply with the certified default arbitration at this stage.
comply with the certified default arbitration at this stage.
[11] While this Court acknowledges the numerous disturbing rescission
applications that have been brought by the First Respondent against
1 Matjhabeng Local Municipality v Eskom Holdings Limited and Others; Mkhonto and Others v
Compensation Solutions (Pty) Limited 2017 (11) BCLR 1408 (CC).
2 Ibid, at 103.
3 No answering affidavit in the rescission application that was before this Court.
5
arbitration awards issued in favour of the Applicants since the dismissal
dispute, it is regrettable that no coercive order at this stage can be made, as
the provisions of the LRA allow the First Respondent to pursue those
rescission applications at the CCMA and both the review and its subsequent
rescission pending in this Court.
[12] Furthermore, this Court notes that at the time of the dismissal of the review
application, a document had been submitted as a “security bond” and was
briefly debated by the parties before this Court; the Respondent's counsel has
indicated willingness of the Applicant to provide a further security bond
pending the determination of the rescission application. This is because no
review application is pending; generally, the arbitration award is enforceable.
4
[13] This Court, being a Court of law and equity, is inclined to accept this on the
following grounds: the First Respondent's Counsel has advised this Court that
the First Respondent is presently experiencing financial difficulties , as it has
recently been losing some business it had with the government .
Consequently, this Court deems it necessary to require that, pending the
rescission application against the Order dismissing the review application, the
First Respondent furnish a security in the amount of R150,000 within ten days
of this Order, considering that the arbitration award inter alia directed the First
Respondent to reinstate the Applicant.
[14] Wherefore, the following Order is made:
Order
1. The Second Respondent is found not in contempt of Court.
2. The First Respondent is found not in contempt of Court.
3. The First Respondent shall furnish security in the amount of R150 000.
00 with the Applicant's attorneys of record within 10 days of this Order,
pending the finalisation of the rescission application.
4 This Court is aware of what Moshoana J said in Denel SOC Ltd v NUMSA obo Peterson and
4 This Court is aware of what Moshoana J said in Denel SOC Ltd v NUMSA obo Peterson and
Another [2022] 10 BLLR 945 (LC) (24 May 2022) about whether a default arbitration award is
enforceable or not, but opines that this is not a matter that this Court will have to deal with such an
issue at this stage.
6
4. There is no order as to costs.
____________________
Sandile Mabaso
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
7
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicants: Mr Seepamore
Instructed by: Seepamore Inc.
For the Respondents: Adv Sediki