IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case no: 2025-062571
In the matter between:
JEAN SARAH SILBERMAN DOVEY Applicant
and
REGENESYS BUSINESS SCHOOL First Respondent
SIBONGISENI DANIEL KHUMALO Second Respondent
PENELOP KAREN LAW Third Respondent
INDHERANI REDDY Fourth Respondent
DR MARKO SAVANJA Firth Respondent
Heard: 19 February 2026
Delivered: 09 March 2026
JUDGMENT
MABASO, AJ
Introduction
(1) Reportable: NO
(2) Of interest to other Judges: No
Signature Date
2
[1] Ms Jean Dovey (“the Applicant”) armed with a certified arbitration award
issued in her favour by the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and
Arbitration ( “the CCMA”), which directed the First Respondent to, inter alia,
“reinstate [her] ... retrospectively from 16 October 2019 without loss of
benefits and to the same or a similar position [she] held [at the time of
dismissal],"1 she instituted these civil contempt proceedings against all the
Respondents,2 alleging that they are in contempt of Court for failure to comply
with these terms of the arbitration award. These proceedings are in terms of
section 143(4), read with (1) and (3) of the LRA ,3 which is a supervisory
provision requiring this Court, after an arbitration award has been issued, to
enforce compliance with the process if an employer has not reinstated an
employee. The Regenesys Business School ( “the First Respondent ”) is the
only party opposing this application and has delivered an affidavit.
[2] At the commencement of the oral arguments, this Court , mero motu, invited
the Applicant's legal representative to reconsider the claim against the
Second to Further Respondents, as the arbitration award did not direct these
respondents to take any action, but only the First Respondent ; indeed, he
wisely conceded on this point. Therefore, henceforth, these contempt
proceedings are solely against the First Respondent, the employer.
Background and analysis
[3] The Applicant was employed by the First Respondent as a Graphic Designer
until she was dismissed. Following her dismissal, she declared an unfair
dismissal dispute with the CCMA against the First Respondent, which resulted
in the arbitration award finding her dismissal to be procedurally and
substantively unfair. Consequently, the First Respondent was ordered to
reinstate her as per the terms mentioned in paragraph 1 above and also to
backpay her.
1 Court emphasis.
backpay her.
1 Court emphasis.
2 The Applicant successfully sought an order, on ex parte application, for an order against all
respondents to show cause why they should not be found guilty of contempt for failing to comply with
part of the terms of the arbitration award.
3 The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended (“the LRA”).
3
[4] This arbitration award was certified on 11 February 2025, after the First
Respondent successfully applied to stay its enforcement pending the
finalisation of a review application. The review application was subsequently
dismissed. There was later an unsuccessful attempt to set aside the same
award through an appeal to the Labour Appeal Court and ultimately to the
Constitutional Court.
[5] After this Court has considered more than 360 pages submitted in this matter,
it appears the dispute centres on one issue: whether the First Respondent
failed and/or refused to reinstate the Applicant when she announced her
intention to report for duty following the dismissal of the leave to appeal by the
Constitutional Court, and, if so, whether that conduct was mala fide. This is
the position, given that both the Applicant and the First Respondent
acknowledge that a certified arbitration award exists and that the First
Respondent was made aware of it.
4
[6] In an attempt to show good cause, t he answering affidavit by Ms Sampath, of
the First Respondent, provides the following explanation: states that the First
Respondent complied with the reinstatement part of the arbitration award. The
First Respondent invited this Court to consider that the Applicant, in her
founding affidavit, stated that, before dismissal, the working relationship was
as follows: the Applicant was paid a set rate, he would regularly submit
invoices to the First Respondent for payment, and worked from home.
[7] The First Respondent further states that f ollowing the issuance of the
arbitration award and the unsuccessful leave to appeal against the same
arbitration award in the Constitutional Court, on 03 June 2024, the First
Respondent’s legal repres entatives issued a letter to the Applicant’s legal
representatives indicating that the Applicant was being reinstated in the same
position that he occupied before the dismissal and would be paid the same
position that he occupied before the dismissal and would be paid the same
rate “and when work is assigned to her by client [she] is not required to come
to the office and can continue to work from home [and] will be paid for the
4 Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (No 2) 2015 (5) SA 600 (CC) at para 32
which reads as follows: (a) the must order exist; (b) the order must have been duly served on, or
brought to the notice of, the alleged contemnor; (c) there must have been non- compliance with the
order; and (d) the non-compliance must have been wilful or mala fide
4
actual hours worked as and when is assigned to her… ”. In response, the
Applicant through her legal repres entatives accepted this and requested “a
copy of her employment contract”.
[8] Furthermore, this Court was invited to take into account that t he Applicant,
later on, after the letter mentioned in the preceding paragraph, declared an
unfair labour practice dispute with the CCMA, claiming “reinstatement with a
fair employment contract”, which she later withdrew and immediately initiated
these contempt proceedings.
[9] This Court, having considered all the documents submitted and referenced by
the parties, including part of the transcribed records clarifying as to what was
the status of a contract of employment before dismissal and a jurisdictional
ruling by the CCMA, in which the Commissioner recorded that it was the
evidence of the Applicant that when she joined the First Respondent , she
signed an employment contract but was never issued with a copy thereof.
[10] It is clear that the Arbitrator issued the arbitration award specifying what the
parties shall do regarding reinstatement, this C ourt acknowledges that upon
perusal of the document s it is clear that there were issues that were
outstanding between the parties before the time of this dismissal such as the
contract of employment (as indicated in the jurisdictional ruling mentioned
above); however, the Arbitrator had not been invited by the parties to decide
on such issues but only whether the dismissal was fair or not, and since the
CCMA is a creature of statute , the Arbitrator issued the arbitration award and
directed the relief as provided in section 193 of the LRA , and said nothing
about a contract of employment in the outcome.
5 Meaning the First
Respondent was not directed by the Arbitrator to issue the Applicant a
contract of employment.
5 193 Remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair labour practice
contract of employment.
5 193 Remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair labour practice
(1) If the Labour Court or an arbitrator appointed in terms of this Act finds that a dismissal is unfair, the Court
or the arbitrator may-
(a) order the employer to reinstate the employee from any date not earlier than the date of dismissal;
(b) order the employer to re-employ the employee, either in the work in which the employee was employed
before the dismissal or in other reasonably suitable work on any terms and from any date not earlier than the
date of dismissal; or (c) order the employer to pay compensation to the employee.
5
[11] The issue of the outstanding employment contract was not before the
Arbitrator, so if the Applicant was concerned about that, there are other
avenues to claim the same. Now, looking at the facts before this Court, the
First Respondent did comply with the reinstat ement order, so any outstanding
issues at the time of dismissal were not res olved by the arbitration award,
which directed only what is stated in paragraph 1.
[12] Based on what is stated in paragraph 7 above, and upon perusal of the
answering affidavit, the First Respondent has shown good cause why it
should not be found guilt y, as it did reinstate the Applicant . Now, if the
Applicant is concerned about other terms of the employment relations, she will
have to use other avenues , as in this matter, it is clear that the Applicant was
reinstated by the First Respondent.
[13] Wherefore, the following Order is made:
Order
1. The First Respondent is not in contempt of Court , as it did comply with
the reinstatement part of the arbitration award herein.
2. There is no order as to costs.
____________________
Sandile Mabaso
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
6
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Mr A Goldberg
Instructed by: Goldberg Attorneys Inc.
For the First Respondent: Ms N Schoeder
Instructed by: Higgs Attorneys