IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case No: 2026/ 113638
In the matter between:
MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT,
GAUTENG PROVINCE First Applicant
THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT: GAUTENG PROVINCIAL
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS Second Applicant
and
MAFUTHA DANIEL SKHOSANA First Respondent
SHERIFF JOHANNESBURG CENTRAL Second Respondent
Heard: 26 May 2026
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to
the parties' legal representatives by email; and publication on
the Labour Court website and released to SAFLII . The date for
hand-down is deemed to be on 27 May 2026
(1) Reportable No
(2) Of interest to other Judges: No
____________ ______________
Signature Date
2
JUDGMENT
MOTSHEKGA, AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an opposed urgent application wherein the applicants, the MEC for the
Department of Human Settlements, Gauteng Province, and the Head of
Department: Gauteng Provincial Department of Human Settlements, seek to
stay a writ of execution pending the final determination of a rescission
application instituted under case number JR 2125/24.
[2] The order sought to be stayed was granted by this Court on 3 September
2025. It directed the reinstatement of the first r espondent and the payment of
arrear remuneration.
[3] The rescission proceedings remain pending before this Court , with the Judge
President having directed the parties to file heads of argument therein.
[4] Notwithstanding, the first respondent has proceeded wi th enforcement of the
order; a writ has been issued and the Sheriff , being the second respondent in
the matter, has commenced with execution proceedings against the
applicants’ property.
Urgency
[5] The applicants submit t hat the matter is urgent on the basis of the impending
execution process. The first r espondent contends that the urgency is self -
created
[6] Briefly, the chronology is as follows . The order was granted on 3 September
2025. It was serv ed on the applicants, together with a letter of de mand, on 8
September 2025. The applicants filed their rescission application on 30
September 2025, without any simultaneous application to stay execution.
3
[7] That a rescission application does not suspend a competent order is
incontrovertible.
[8] In February 2026, the first r espondent approached this Court before Justice
Lallie on an urgent basis seeking a declaratory order that the 3 September
2025 order was executable. A bsent any undertaking to the contrary , the
applicant ought to have reasonably apprehended that enforcement would
follow.
[9] The Sheriff attended at the Applicants’ premises on 5 May 2026. This urgent
application was launched on 19 May 2026, eight months following the order
and a letter of demand being served on the applicants.
[10] The chronology is disconcerting. The a pplicants were expressly warned from
8 September 2025 that enforcement would follow noncompliance with the
order. They did not file a stay in the ordinary cours e when they launched the
rescission application. Not even an application to this Court to declare the
order executable prompted the applicants to approach the Court for a stay of
the execution. It was only when the Sheriff was at their door step that they
deemed it fit to approach this Court for a stay . Accordingly, the submission by
the applicant s’ counsel that t he Sheriff’s attendance at the applicants’
premises was the ‘trigger’ is unsustainable.
[11] However, even where urgency is self-created in material respects, the Court
retains a discretion to hear the matter where the interests of justice so
demand. In the present matter, the execution has already commenced. The
property attached belongs to a provincial department and is utilised in the
discharge of its constitutional and statutory obligations. The prejudice
confronting the applicants is palpable. This Court is sati sfied that,
notwithstanding that the applicants contributed to the urgency , the interests of
justice warrant the matter being heard.
The stay of execution
[12] Turning to the merit s of the application for a stay. The applicants have
[12] Turning to the merit s of the application for a stay. The applicants have
instituted rescission proceedings in respect of the underlying order. Those
proceedings are extant and appear to be at a progressive stage. The first
4
respondent contends that the rescission application is without merit and is
fatally defective. As correctl y submitted by counsel for the applicants, this
Court is not called upon to determine the merits of the rescission. It suffices
that the underlying dispute between the parties accordingly remains alive.
[13] The first respondent’s right to enforce the order is not in dispute. However, the
Court finds that the balance of convenience favours the granting of a s tay.
The continued attachment and imminent removal and sale of such property
will cause unnecessary interruptions to the effective functioning of the
Department. The prejudice to the first respondent, by comparison, can be
mitigated by an order for security , which has been tendered by the applicants
during oral submissions.
Costs
[14] The Constitutional Court in Sibongile Zungu v Premier of the Province of
KwaZulu-Natal and Others 1 confirmed that the rule of practice which in terms
of which costs follow the result does not apply to labour matters. The
discretion to award costs is to be exercised in accordance with the principles
of law and fairness.2
[15] As recorded above, the applicants were expressly warned of imminent
enforcement yet failed to seek a stay timeously.
[16] However, the applicants’ conduct must be weighed against the context within
which this application arises. The rescission proceedings are ongoing and
appear to be at an advanced stage. Thus, the underlying dispute between the
parties remains unresolved. In the circumstances, and having regard to the
requirements of law and fairness, this Court is not persuaded that a costs
order against the applicants as urged by the first respondent's counsel would
be justified. In the result, the following order is made:
1 (2018) 39 ILJ 523 (CC) at para 24.
2 Section 162 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.
5
Order
1. The forms, service and time periods prescribed by the Rules of the
Labour Court are dispensed with in terms of Rule 38, and this
application is heard as one of urgency.
2. The enforcement of the writ of execution issued in respect of the order
granted on 3 September 2025 under case number JR 2125/24, and all
execution steps taken pursuant thereto, are hereby stayed pending the
final determination of the rescission application instituted under case
number JR 2125/24.
3. The stay of the enforcement of the writ of execution is conditional upon
the Applicants lodging with the Registr ar of this Court, within fifteen
(15) court days of the date of this order, a bond of security in the
amount of R4,142,310.64 (Four Million, One Hundred and Forty -Two
Thousand, Three Hundred and Ten Rands and Sixty-Four Cents).
4. There is no order as to costs.
_______________________
M. J. Motshekga
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Adv Setlhako
Instructed by: State Attorney
For the First Respondent: Adv SI Ngwetjana