Sheriff at the door: Gauteng department fights R1.14m arbitration payout in Labour Court

For a brief moment last month, the usually busy corridors of the Gauteng Economic Development Department’s Eloff Street offices were not just filled with civil servants and policy files but with the looming possibility of office furniture being tagged for auction.

A sheriff had arrived.

The visit followed an arbitration award of nearly R1.14 million in favour of former agency oversight and corporate governance director, Sibusiso Dlangalala. Now, what began as an employment dispute has escalated into a full-blown legal showdown heading to the Labour Court.

How the dispute began

Dlangalala’s fixed-term contract with the Gauteng Economic Development Department had been extended multiple times before it came to an end. He was later dismissed a move he challenged as unfair.

In November last year, the General Public Service Sector Bargaining Council (GPSSBC) ruled in his favour, reinstating him with backpay amounting to almost R1.14 million.

The award was later certified by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) in line with the Labour Relations Act (LRA), meaning it carried the same weight as a Labour Court order.

Under South African labour law, once an arbitration award is certified, it can be enforced as if a writ has been issued by the court. In practical terms, that opens the door for sheriffs to attach assets if payment is not made.

And that’s exactly what happened.

A dramatic turn on Eloff Street

The sheriff’s arrival at the department’s headquarters where MEC Lebogang Maile has his office signalled that enforcement was no longer theoretical.

Dlangalala had rejected the department’s offer of security and instructed the sheriff to proceed with attaching property to satisfy the award.

But the department pushed back.

It approached the Labour Court of South Africa seeking an urgent stay of execution while it reviews the arbitration ruling.

The R2.6 million security offer

In court papers, the department confirmed it had furnished security equivalent to 24 months’ remuneration about R2.6 million in compliance with the LRA.

According to the law, providing such security can automatically suspend the enforcement of an arbitration award pending a review application.

The department argues that its offer meets the legal requirements and should prevent any attachment of state assets.

Dlangalala, however, did not accept that security as sufficient hence the sheriff’s attempted action.

Why the department says this matters beyond money

In an affidavit, head of department Motlatjo Moholwa warned the court that the consequences of asset attachment would go far beyond a financial transaction.

He argued that removing movable state assets could disrupt daily operations and service delivery. Government departments, he said, rely on infrastructure, systems and equipment to fulfil constitutional and statutory obligations.

There’s also the issue of public finance management. State assets are governed by strict frameworks under the Public Finance Management Act and National Treasury regulations. Unauthorised movement or seizure, Moholwa warned, could expose the department to audit findings, financial irregularities and even personal liability for accounting officers.

In short: this isn’t just about desks and chairs. It’s about how far enforcement can go when it collides with the machinery of government.

Public reaction: divided and vocal

On social media, reactions have been mixed and telling.

Some users have questioned why public funds are repeatedly tied up in labour disputes instead of being directed towards economic development initiatives in a province battling unemployment and sluggish growth.

Others argue that if the dismissal was found to be unfair, the former official is entitled to every cent and that government departments should be held to the same legal standards as private employers.

There’s also growing frustration among residents about the cost of protracted legal battles, particularly at a time when Gauteng faces infrastructure backlogs and service delivery complaints.

The bigger picture: fixed-term contracts in government

This case also shines a light on a long-running issue in public service employment the repeated extension of fixed-term contracts.

South African labour law scrutinises repeated renewals carefully. When a contract is extended multiple times, employees can develop a reasonable expectation of continued employment. Disputes often arise when those contracts are not renewed, especially for senior officials.

It’s not the first time a provincial department has found itself defending such a matter and likely won’t be the last.

What happens next?

For now, the Labour Court has granted a stay of execution pending the outcome of the department’s review application. That means the sheriff cannot proceed with attachment until the court decides whether the arbitration ruling should stand.

If the review fails, the department could ultimately be required to pay out the award. If it succeeds, the arbitration outcome could be set aside.

Either way, the case underscores a deeper tension: when public institutions challenge arbitration awards, they are balancing legal rights, fiscal responsibility, and public accountability all under the watchful eye of taxpayers.

And for a department tasked with driving economic growth in Gauteng, the optics of a sheriff at the door are hardly ideal.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com