In Department of Higher Education v Ramoshowana and Others (2025/239196) [2026] ZALCJHB (16 February 2026) the Labour Court considered whether the furnishing of security would suspend the operation of the arbitration award notwithstanding that the matter had been archived.

The dispute emanated from an arbitration award issued in favour of an employee in June 2019. Dissatisfied with the award, the Department of Higher Education (Department) instituted a review application in August 2019. The Department failed to file the record of the arbitration proceedings timeously and only furnished a security bond in June 2021; approximately two years after the review application was instituted and after it had already lapsed. Between June 2025 and November 2025, the employee sought to enforce the award. In December 2025, the Department launched an urgent application to set aside a writ of execution and to stay the enforcement of the award. The question before Kroon AJ was whether the security bond effectively stayed the enforcement of the award in circumstances where the underlying review application had been archived.

Court’s findings

The court found that the archiving of a review application occurs automatically once the relevant time periods expire. In the court’s view, an applicant who allows a review application to be archived, by failing to file pleadings or the record within the prescribed timelines, is regarded as having abandoned the review application. The consequence is that there is no lis (pending dispute) before the court. As such, any subsequent pleadings filed in respect of the lapsed review application have no legal significance, and the security bond is a nullity. The court therefore dismissed the Department’s application to stay the enforcement of the award on the merits and struck the application to set aside the writ from the roll for lack of urgency.

Contrasting approaches

The approach adopted by Kroon AJ stands in direct contrast to that of the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) in Tabata v Aspen Pharmacare Ltd (PA17/2024) [2025] ZALAC 43 (24 July 2025)

In Tabata, the LAC rejected the notion that an archived review application ceases to exist. The LAC, per Van Niekerk JA, held that an archived review application acquires a unique status which requires judicial intervention to be reinstated or dismissed. Put differently, the mere fact that a review application has been archived does not mean that the matter is “dead”.

On this basis, the LAC found that the security filed operated to suspend the enforcement of the arbitration award, notwithstanding that the review application had been archived.

While the Labour Court is bound by the decisions of the LAC, these differing approaches are important for employers to note in order to understand the potential consequences of failing to timeously file adequate security and failing to comply with the time periods applicable to review applications.

Key takeaways for employers

Employers are encouraged to ensure that review applications in the Labour Court are prosecuted diligently and that the provisions of sections 145(7) and (8) of the LRA governing the furnishing of security and the Rules of the Labour Court are complied with. Non-compliance may result in an employee being able to execute on or enforce an award.