Nine years.
That is how long this matter has been in the system.
It began with an arbitration award in April 2016. What should have followed was a timeous review, properly prosecuted, and a final answer. Instead, what unfolded was a procedural saga that illustrates how slowly the wheels of justice can turn, and how taxing uncertainty can be for ordinary litigants.
I acted for NEHAWU in enforcing the award. What followed was not one Labour Court battle, but several.
The First Labour Court Round: Judicial Displeasure
The employer launched a review. Late. The record was incomplete. The prosecution of the review was sporadic. Years passed. When the matter came before the Labour Court in the first round, Lagrange J described the history as “tortuous” and catalogued a chronology of delay stretching over years
Despite the egregious delays, the Court allowed reinstatement of the review on jurisdictional grounds. But it did not do so quietly. It expressed its displeasure through a punitive cost order on an attorney-own-client scale. That was significant. Punitive costs are not granted lightly. They signal judicial frustration with the manner in which litigation has been conducted. Yet even that did not bring finality.
The Second Round: Archiving
Time passed again. Settlement discussions were raised. Directions were issued. The matter stalled. In 2025, the matter returned to the Labour Court before Oosthuizen AJ. The question was whether the review should remain alive or be archived under clause 16 of the Practice Manual. The Court’s language was measured but firm. A review remaining unresolved nine years after the award was issued was described as “unacceptable” https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZALCCT/2025/41.html
The explanation for the delay was found to be neither comprehensive nor satisfactory. The matter was re-archived. Costs were again awarded on an attorney-client scale. I argued that application. We succeeded. But the litigation did not end there. The employer has filed for leave to appeal. I am opposing. We now await the outcome. And so the wheel continues to turn.
The Human Cost of Uncertainty
It is easy to focus on procedure: reinstatement, condonation, archiving, leave to appeal.
But for employees, this is not academic. For nearly a decade, two individuals have lived with unresolved litigation hanging over their professional futures. Employment disputes affect income, reputation, pension benefits and family stability. The longer uncertainty persists, the heavier the burden becomes.
The Role of Institutional Backing
One uncomfortable truth stands out. Without the union’s financial backing, most individual litigants would have abandoned the matter years ago. Reviews are expensive. Opposed applications are expensive. Archiving proceedings and opposition to leave to appeal are expensive. The risk of adverse costs always looms.
An individual paying from his own pocket would likely have settled cheaply or withdrawn entirely. And with that, his rights would have evaporated. Access to justice is not only about legal principles. It is about whether someone can afford to persist. Institutional support makes rights meaningful.
What This Case Reinforced for Me
First, delay can become a form of strategy. Even if not deliberate, its effect is the same. Second, the Labour Court will intervene when abuse of process or disregard for the Practice Manual becomes intolerable. Third, punitive cost orders matter. They are a signal that courts expect diligence. Finally, persistence matters.
Litigation at this level requires stamina. It requires steady advice to clients who are weary of waiting. It requires the discipline to remain measured, even when the process stretches over nearly a decade. Nine years is a long time in anyone’s career. For this matter, it is not yet over.
Justice may move slowly. But it must move.
Clive Hendricks
Director | Marais Müller Hendricks Inc
Labour Court Reviews | Enforcement | Complex Public Sector Litigation
Cape Town