DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION LIMPOPO v SHERIFF OF POLOKWANE HIGH COURT AND LOWER COURTS AND OTHERS [2026] ZALCJHB 115

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 8 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg

Name of Judge(s): Steenkamp AJ

Summary of Factual Matrix: 

An arbitration award dated 4 June 2025 found the dismissal of the Third Respondent both procedurally and substantively unfair, ordering reinstatement with backpay amounting to R1,559,940.30. The Applicant instructed the State Attorney on 13 June 2025 to institute review proceedings and requested an application to stay enforcement. 

Due to an alleged "oversight", the stay application was not pursued. The review application was only instituted on 30 January 2026. On 18 February 2026, the Sheriff served a notice of attachment. The Applicant then instituted the urgent application on 18 March 2026, seeking interim relief staying the writ of execution pending the review outcome.

Summary of Findings:

"[12] Urgency is not established where it is self created through an applicant's failure to act with the necessary expedition. This court has consistently held that the diligence with which a litigant acts once the cause of action arises is a material consideration in determining urgency. Unexplained or undue delay is inimical to a claim of urgency and may be fatal to it. An applicant is therefore required to approach the Court promptly and failing a satisfactory explanation for any delay, the matter stands to be struck from the roll for lack of urgency."

"[15] The only rationale advanced by the Applicant on this score is internal administrative oversight. This explanation is flimsy and unsatisfactory. The Applicant issued an instruction state attorney in June 2025. Thereafter however, the Applicant did nothing to ascertain whether its instructions were acted upon. It was only once the Sheriff attended the premises of the Applicant during February 2026 when they realised, some 8 months later, that this application was not instituted. The affidavits filed by the Applicant do not demonstrate that there were any enquiries made with the office of the state attorney at all post the correspondence of 26 June 2025."

"[16] There is a point beyond which a litigant cannot escape the negligence of the representatives, particularly in circumstances where there is no record of any reasonable steps taken by the litigant to ensure that their instructions are executed."

"[17] This court is of the view that given the quantum of the award and the fact that the Applicant is an organ of state, there was an even greater onus on the Applicant to ensure that this matter was diligently prosecuted. Any measure of diligence is woefully absent in casu. Accordingly, the matter stands to be struck from the roll for lack of urgency."

Basis for Opinion: The Court held that the urgency was self-created through the Applicant's failure to act with necessary expedition. The explanation of "internal administrative oversight" was inadequate, particularly given the Applicant's status as an organ of state and the substantial quantum involved. The Applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable steps taken to ensure instructions to the State Attorney were executed over an eight-month period.

Order:

"1. The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency; 

 2. Costs are reserved."