‘Remarkable Delay’: Labour Court Slams Department for Six-Year Stalling on R484,000 Award

The Department of Higher Education has been dealt a stinging rebuke by the Labour Court in Johannesburg for its “remarkable” six-year delay in prosecuting a review applicationa delay that allowed a R484,860 arbitration award to grow by at least R320,000 in interest.

Acting Judge P N Kroon dismissed the department’s urgent application to set aside a writ of execution and halt enforcement of the award, finding that the department’s review application had automatically lapsed and that there was no legal basis to stay execution.

The Background

The arbitration award was issued in June 2019 in favour of former employee Silas Ramoshowana, ordering the department to pay R484,860.

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.

The Delay

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.

The Legal Issues

The court ruled that because the review application had lapsed automatically, there was no pending legal process before the court. A lapsed review has no legal effect unless revived by a formal reinstatement applicationand the department had not brought such an application.

The judge 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.

The Prescription Argument

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.

The judge criticised the department’s reliance on prescription as “cynical,” particularly given its own failure to prosecute the review diligently.

The Urgency

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.

The Outcome

The urgent application was dismissed, clearing the way for Ramoshowana to enforce the arbitration award.

By December 2025, with interest calculated at the prescribed rate, the total amount owed had grown by at least R320,000. The department’s delay has cost it dearlyand the court has made clear that such stalling will not be tolerated.

The Bottom Line

A department that waited six years to prosecute its review, offered only hearsay explanations, and then cried urgency at the eleventh hour has been sent packing. The message from the Labour Court is clear: delays have consequences. And in this case, the consequence is a judgmentwith interest.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com