The end of tactical review? Navigating section 145(3), (7) and (8) post-amendment in JDJ Diagnostics v Kruger
Carlos Joel Tchawouo Mbiada ORCID ↗
International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2025 · Vol. 14 / Issue 7 · 668-672
Publication metrics
External links open provider records or DOI searches. Provider counts are not combined. Mendeley readership measures saves, not citations.
Dimensions
Live provider badge. If unavailable, use the Dimensions link above.
Observed 21 Oct 2026, 07:22 UTC
Observed 21 Oct 2026 07:23 UTC
Observed 22 Oct 2026 02:25 UTC
OpenAlex and Mendeley observations refresh on article visits, at most once per 24 hours. Unavailable data is not zero. Google Scholar opens a DOI search.
Citations received by this article, grouped by the year of the citing work. Crossref and OpenAlex lifetime totals remain separate in Publication metrics.
2017–2026 Annual history last updated:
Citations received
OpenAlex · year of the citing work
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2017–2026 annual-history window. 2026 is year to date. Unknown years have gaps.
View data & coverage
2026 is incomplete. Within a successfully fetched ten-year window, omitted years mean zero. Years beyond a saved observation’s window remain unknown (—). Older citations are excluded, so this chart’s sum may differ from the OpenAlex lifetime total. The date above belongs to this annual history; an unsuccessful refresh keeps the previous observation.
Abstract
This case note critically analyses the Labour Court’s decision in JDJ Diagnostics (Pty) Ltd v Michael Kruger and Others under Case No: D705/2023 delivered on 30 April 2025 (JDJ Diagnostics), which highlights the procedural firmness required in applications to stay the enforcement of arbitration awards under the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA). JDJ Diagnostics’ failure to substantiate its claim of urgency, comply with section 145(8), or justify nonconformity under section 145(3) led to the dismissal of its urgent application. The case illustrates the judiciary’s firm stance against abuse of court processes in the aftermath of the 2014 amendment of the LRA, which shifted toward formalisation in review procedures. Drawing on case law and scholarly publications, the case note explores how the court’s reasoning reflects broader trends in labour dispute resolution, reinforcing the binding nature of arbitration awards and the evidentiary burden on employers seeking to delay enforcement. The judgment confirms that the furnishing of security is no longer discretionary but foundational, marking a continued evolution towards enforcement, fairness, and efficiency in the speedy resolution of disputes in the South African labour law landscape.
Keywords: {'name': 'Arbitration awards'}, {'name': 'stay of enforcement'}, {'name': 'security'}, {'name': 'review'}
Authors & affiliations
Carlos Joel Tchawouo Mbiada
University of Venda
Deposited references
Supplied references, not a list of publications citing this article.
Bhekani Abantu Services (Pty) Ltd v Redelinghuys & Others (2024) 45 ILJ 1242 (LC).
City of Johannesburg v SA Municipal Workers Union on behalf of Monareng & Another (2019) 40 ILJ 1753 (LAC).
Italsafaris CC t/a Viva Safaris v National Union of Food Beverage Wine Spirits & Allied Workers on behalf of Members & Others (2024) 45 ILJ 2004 (LAC).
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1996 (South Africa).
Springveldt, Y. (n.d.). Dispute resolution under the Labour Relations Act: Practical implications of the amendments to section 145 on the furnishing of security. Industrial Law Journal, 38(Part 1).
Tchawouo Mbiada, C. J. (2019). The furnishing of security in terms of section 145(7) and (8) of the Labour Relations Act: A slow start towards a better end? Industrial Law Journal, 40, 2237–2250.
Van Zyl, B. (2020). Stay of arbitration awards pending review applications. HR Future, 6.