THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case no: 2026-161860
In the matter between:
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS Applicant
and
GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL
BARGAINING COUNCIL First Respondent
COMMISSIONER QINUMUZI SAMSON MAZIBUKO N.O. Second Respondent
JOSEPH KGOBATHA MBULI Third Respondent
SYLVIA MANTEPELA MOFOKENG Fourth
Respondent
SAMUEL MAPHALE MOLOI Fifth Respondent
BERENDT MALEFETSANE MOSIA Sixth Respondent
THE SHERIFF: BETHLEHEM DISTRICT Seventh Respondent
THE SHERIFF: PRETORIA NORTH EAST
DISTRICT Eighth Respondent
(1) Reportable Yes/No
(2) Of interest to other Judges: Yes/No
(3) Revised
____________ ______________
Signature Date
2
Heard: 24 July 2026
Judgment delivered: 20 August 2026
JUDGMENT
PHEHANE, J
Background
[1] The applicant brings this application on an urgent basis to stay the
enforcement of a writ of execution issued in favour of the third to the sixth
respondents pending an application in terms of section 145 of the Labour
Relations Act 1 (LRA) launched on 9 April 2024 to review and set aside an
arbitration award issued by the first and second respondents. In the
alternative, the applicant seeks an order exempting it from furnishing security
as contemplated in section 145(7) and (8) of the LRA.
2
[2] The application is opposed by the third to the sixth respondents.
Background
[3] The third to the sixth respondents were employed by the applicant. They were
dismissed for serious acts of misconduct in September 2008. Following the
determination of the unfair dismissal dispute referred by the third to the sixth
respondents to the first respondent (the General Public Service Sectoral
Bargaining Council – GPSSBC), the second respondent (the Commissioner)
issued a default arbitration award on 23 November 2023 in their favour and
ordered the applicant to reinstate them with back pay. The arbitration award
was varied on 13 March 2024. The variation concerned the monetary portion
of the arbitration award. The monetary portion award totals approximately
R4.9 million.
1 Act 66 of 1995, as amended.
2 See: Prayers 1 and 2 of the notice of motion at p 001-3, read with para 14 of the founding affidavit at
p 002- 5.
3
[4] The applicant launched an application to rescind the default arbitration award,
which was dismissed in a ruling dated 23 February 2024.
Review application
[5] As stated above, the applicant launched an application to review the
arbitration award. Th e applicant also seeks to review this rescission
application in its aforesaid review application. In this review application, the
applicant seeks condonation for its late filing. The review application is
opposed by the third to the sixth respondents.
[6] The applicant explains that it prosecuted its review application in a timely
manner. However, due to administrative delays on the part of this Court, the
review application was not s cheduled for hearing. The applicant conducted
numerous follow-ups with the Registrar of this Court regarding the date of the
hearing of the review application with the knowledge of the third to the sixth
respondents. It was only on 1 June 2026, that the applicant was informed by
the administrati ve staff of this Court that the review application would be
enrolled for hearing on 4 March 2027. However, no notice of set down has
been issued to the parties to date.
[7] The applicant accordingly avers that it has not been dilatory in pursuing its
review application.
Enforcement of the arbitration award
[8] In January 2026, the third to the sixth respondents launched an application in
terms of section 143 of the LRA to certify the arbitration award. The applicant
unsuccessfully opposed this application. On 16 April 2026, the arbitration
award was certified by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration (CCMA). On 23 April 2026, a writ of execution was issued directing
the seventh respondent to execute the goods of the applicant in its office
located in the Bethlehem District. The applicant avers that it was not aware of
the writ at that stage. However, the applicant avers that in a letter dated 24
April 2026, the third to sixth respondents instructed the seventh respondent to
April 2026, the third to sixth respondents instructed the seventh respondent to
execute the writ. This letter is copied to the applicant, but the applicant does
4
not tell this Court whether it was aware of this letter. The applicant avers that
its attorney of record only became aware of the certified arbitration award on
15 May 2026.
[9] On 1 July 2026, the eighth respondent attended at the applicant’s head office
in the Pretoria North East District to enforce the writ and attached the
applicant’s goods to the value of R6 million. The applicant was not ified that if
payment of the judgment debt was not made to the eighth respondent by 20
July 2026, the applicant’s attached goods would be removed and sold in
execution to satisfy the debt.3
[10] On 6 July 2026, the applicant addressed correspondence to the third to sixth
respondents and to the seventh and eighth respondents, in which it sought an
undertaking by no later than 10h00 on 8 July 2026, that the writ would not be
enforced pending the review application, as the applicant was at that stage,
informed by the administrati ve staff of this Court that the review application
was to be enrolled for hearing in March 2027.
4 The third to sixth respondents
refused to furnish such an undertaking, citing that the applicant delayed
obtaining a set -down date for the hearing of the review application, and that
the date of March 2027 was far off, given the financial and emotional
difficulties experienced by them. The applicant was accordingly put to terms to
pay the judgment debt by 13 July 2026 , alternatively, to furnish security in
terms of section 145(7) and (8) of the LRA. 5 The eighth respondent did not
provide any undertaking, and the seventh respondent indicated that it did not
have pending execution steps in the matter.
Urgent application
[11] The applicant launched this present application on 8 July 2026 for hearing on
21 July 2026. However, the pleadings were not uploaded on Caselines until
the morning of Sunday, 19 July 2026. The applicant’s heads of argument were
uploaded on Caselines on Monday, 20 July 2029 at 16h41.
3 Annexure “LTM 15.1” at p 002-130.
uploaded on Caselines on Monday, 20 July 2029 at 16h41.
3 Annexure “LTM 15.1” at p 002-130.
4 Annexure “LTM 17”, at p002-136 and “LTM 18” at p 002-139.
5 Annexure “LTM 19” at pp 002-140.
5
[12] As the applicant had not complied with clause 13.17 of the Directive on the
Implementation of Court Online Electronic Platform in t he Labour Court ,6 the
parties were required to make submissions on the hearing date on 21 July
2026 as to why the matter should not be removed from the roll. The
applicant’s counsel submitted that he realised on Thursday, 16 July 2026 that
the pleadings were not uploaded on Caselines and the applicant’s instructing
attorney contacted the Registrar, who undertook that an event would be
created on Court Online, which would permit the creation of the bundle in
order for the bundle to migrate to Caselines. This Court is not to be bogged
down with administrative issues. The applicant’s instructing attorney ought to
have enquired with the Registrar as soon as possible after the case number
was issued, for compliance with all administrative steps in order that the
digital Court file be uploaded on C aselines on the Thursday preceding the
hearing date in line with the principles of urgency in Luna Meubels (EDMS)
BPK v Makin and Another
7 and Republikeinse Publikasies (EDMS) BPK v
Afrikaanse Pers P ublikasies ( EDMS) BPK.8 The matter stood down until 24
July 2026 to afford the parties the opportunity to upload their pleadings on
Caselines and in order for this Court to read the papers. The pleadings were
uploaded on 21 July 2026, however, the parties had to be reminded by the
presiding judge through the issuance of a directive, to properly upload the
papers in line with the provisions of Directive 1 of 2025, due to the fact that
the affidavits and annexures were clumped together under one folder which
made reading the voluminous papers cumbersome.
[13] Rule 38(1) and (2) of the Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings in
the Labour Court
9 provide:
6 Directive 1 of 2025, effective 14 April 2025. Claude 3.17 reads:
‘Once the case number has been issued by the Registrar or Judge’s Secretary, the practitioner or
litigant must:
litigant must:
(a) upload the complete founding documents (which would have been served) and fully comply with
the Rules of this Court in respect of the filing and service of documents; and if the documents
were served via e-mail a service affidavit must be uploaded and
(b) Create the case bundle.’
7 1977 (4) SA 135 (W) at 137A-E.
8 1972 (1) SA 773 (A).
9 Published under GN 4775a in GG 50608 of 3 May 2024.
6
‘(1) A party that applies for urgent relief must file an application that
complies with the requirements of the rules relating to applications
generally.
(2) The affidavit in support of the application must also contain:
(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) …’
[14] The test for urgency is well established. 10 The applicant must in its founding
affidavit, explicitly set out why the application is urgent, why the abridgement
of the ordinary rules for service and filing of pleadings is necessary and why it
will not obtain substantial redress if the application is heard in the ordinary
course. The applicant was put to terms on when to pay the judgment debt. It
would have been expected in such circumstances, for the applicant to have
sought a hearing date on the urgent roll sooner with truncated time lines
commensurate with the urgency.
[15] The application was filed in this Court on 8 July 2026 at 18h59. On its own
version the applicant avers that it launched this application on 10 July 2026,
one week after the sheriff gave it the deadline to pay the judgment debt. It
gave the respondents until 15h00 on 16 July 2026 to file their opposing
papers and gave itself until 17 July 2026 to deliver a replying affidavit.
However, the applicant submitted to this Court that it is the Registrar who
prevented it from filing all pleadings timeously. It cannot be, if its replying
affidavit was to be filed by 16h00 on Friday, 17 July 2026 and was filed at
11h24 on 17 July 2026. It has become a pattern for litigants to blame the
Registrar or delay s on the Courts Online platform when they fail to comply
with the provisions of Directive 1 of 2026. This must be discouraged.
[16] It is trite that w here self -created urgency exists, the urgent application is at
risk of being struck off the roll.
11
risk of being struck off the roll.
11
10 Eazi Access Rental (Pty) Ltd v Suleman and Another (2025/009793) [2025] ZALCJHB 192 (12 May
2025) at para 39; East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Valley Granite (Pty) Ltd and Others
2011 JDR 1832 (GSJ) at para 8.
11 Department of Health, Gauteng Province and another v Teteni and others [2024] JOL 63406 (LC) at
para 37; Soobedar and another v Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and another
(2021) 42 ILJ 1761 (LC) at para 20.
7
[17] The applicant was well aware on 1 July 2026, of the deadline provided to it to
effect payment of the judgment debt by 20 July 2026, yet it only approached
this Court on 8 July 2026 for a hearing date on 21 July 2026, one day after the
deadline that was imposed on it. This is unexplained. The applicant did not
take any active steps to ensure that the hearing was enrolled in the two weeks
before 20 July 2026 and that the pleadings were properly before the Court in
compliance with Directive 1 of 2025.
[18] In my view, the applicant focused on obtaining a hearing date for the review
application, in circumstances where it is well aware that the institution of
review proceedings does not s uspend the enforcement of an arbitration
award. The review application was filed more than two years ago. Although
section 145(7) read with 145(8) of the LRA does not make provision for the
date for filing security, as at January 2026, the applicant was aware of the
third to sixth respondents’ intention to enforce the arbitration award, yet it did
not approach this Court at that stage on an urgent basis to seek an order
exempting it from filing security.
[19] In my view, urgency is self -created, and on this basis alone, the application
falls to be struck off the roll.
Costs
[20] The conduct of the applicant in failing to ensure compliance with the
provisions of Directive 1 of 2025 warrants censure. The applicant was given
the opportunity to place an affidavit before this Court to explain its non-
compliance, but elected not to do so. It transpires that the applicant sought to
lay the blame on the Registrar for failing to ensure that the pleadings were
properly before this Court on the urgent roll , whereas its own time- frame, as
set out in its notice of motion, is the reason for non- compliance with Directive
1 of 2025, which delayed the hearing. This resulted in placing undue pressure
on the already strained resources of this C ourt. Such conduct must be
on the already strained resources of this C ourt. Such conduct must be
discouraged. Accordingly, an order is made for the payment of costs.
[21] In the premises, the following order is made:
8
Order
1. The application is struck off the roll for lack of urgency with costs.
___________________
M T M Phehane
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
9
Appearances:
For the applicant : Adv Yusuf Peer
Instructed by : Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc.
For the third to sixth respondents : L R Modiba
Instructed by : Khorommbi Mabuli Attorneys