Labour Court rejects department of higher education's bid to overturn R484,000 arbitration award
Image: File
The Labour Court in Johannesburg has dismissed an application by the Department of Higher Education to set aside a writ of execution and halt enforcement of a 2019 arbitration award, sharply criticising the department’s unexplained six-year delay in prosecuting its review application.
Acting Judge P N Kroon found that the department’s review application had automatically lapsed and that there was no legal basis to stay execution of the award in favour of former employee, Silas Ramoshowana.
The arbitration award, issued in June 2019, ordered the department to pay Ramoshowana R484,860. With interest calculated at the prescribed rate, the court noted that the total amount had grown by at least R320,000 by December 2025.
Although the department launched a review application in August 2019, it failed to file the record within the required timeframes under the Labour Court’s Practice Manual. The court found that the review had lapsed automatically by mid-2020 due to non-compliance with mandatory deadlines.
Judge Kroon described the six-year delay as “remarkable” and largely unexplained. The department attributed the inaction to difficulties locating the court file and changes in personnel at the office of the State Attorney. However, no comprehensive affidavit from the State Attorney’s office was filed to account for the prolonged inactivity.
The judge held that the department’s explanations amounted to hearsay and were insufficient to justify the delay.
A central issue was whether the court could stay execution of the award pending the review. The court ruled that because the review application had lapsed automatically, there was no pending legal process before the court.
The court emphasised that a lapsed review has no legal effect unless revived by a formal reinstatement application. The department had not brought such an application.
Judge Kroon rejected the department’s argument that the filing of a security bond in 2021 revived the review, describing that reasoning as “self-evidently incorrect.” Any steps taken after the review lapsed, he said, were legally meaningless.
In a further attempt to resist enforcement, the department argued that the award had prescribed (expired). The court dismissed this contention, pointing to Section 145(9) of the Labour Relations Act, which provides that a review application interrupts prescription (expiry).
The judge criticised the department’s reliance on prescription as “cynical,” particularly given its own failure to prosecute the review diligently.
The court also found that the department had created its own urgency. The sheriff had attempted to execute against departmental property as early as June 2025, yet the urgent application was only launched in December 2025, with respondents given just two days to file answering papers.
Ultimately, the court concluded that because the review application had lapsed and no reinstatement application had been filed, there was no jurisdictional basis to grant a stay of execution.
The urgent application was dismissed, clearing the way for Ramoshowana to enforce the arbitration award.
IOL News
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel