Primary briefing · Judgment
medium impact Labour Court, Johannesburg · 3 September 2026
Department of Correctional Services v Mofokeng and Others
The Department of Correctional Services launched a review of a CCMA arbitration award but did not furnish security under s 145(7) of the LRA at that time. Security was furnished only on 28 July 2026, well after the review was instituted. The employee respondents opposed the stay, arguing the security was late, excessive, and unserved, and that the review had lapsed.
The court held: The court declared that s 145(7) imposes no requirement to furnish security at the time of launching a review. Security may be furnished at any time, and the statutory suspension of the arbitration award operates prospectively from the date security is furnished. Execution steps taken before that date were lawfully taken under the default position. Security exceeding the prescribed amount is not defective. Non-service of the bond on the employee is not a condition of validity. Following the LAC authority in Tabata, an archived review is not extinguished and the court retains jurisdiction. The Sheriff was interdicted from enforcing the award pending final determination of the review.
Legal impact: Develops the law on s 145(7) by confirming that the timing of furnishing security is flexible, removing the assumption that security must accompany the launch of a review. It also distinguishes Molaetsa on self-created urgency, holding that a delay in furnishing security does not of itself constitute self-created urgency. This changes the enforcement risk calculus for employers: they can furnish security at any point to halt further execution, but remain exposed to lawful enforcement steps taken before that date.
Who is affected
Employers (especially public sector) with pending LRA review applicationsLabour law practitioners advising on enforcement and stay of arbitration awardsEmployees and unions seeking to execute arbitration awards during pending reviewsSheriffs and execution practitioners What this means for practitioners
Employers with pending s 145 reviews who have not yet furnished security should reassess enforcement exposure and consider furnishing security immediately to halt further execution.
Labour practitioners should note that excess security is not a valid ground of opposition and that non-service of the bond on the employee does not invalidate it.
Practitioners opposing stays should no longer rely on the argument that late furnishing of security is inherently defective or constitutes self-created urgency.