The interaction between the Prescription Act1 and the Labour Relations Act2 has received a great deal of judicial attention, including in various evenly split Judgments of the Constitutional Court.
This difficulty was ultimately resolved by the Constitutional Court in Food & Allied Workers Union on behalf of Gaoshubelwe v Pieman’s Pantry (Pty) Ltd (“Pieman’s”).3
Whilst the majority in Pieman’s held that the two acts were not inconsistent, the Judgment did not expressly deal with whether a CCMA or Bargaining Council arbitration award constituted a ‘Judgment Debt’ for the purposes of the Prescription Act – thereby giving rise to a thirty-year period of prescription.
What followed from Pieman’s was the Judgment of the Labour Appeal Court in Motsoaledi and Others v Mabuza (“Mabuza”)4 where the Labour Appeal Court made the following obiter remark:
“[27] The reasoning in Myathaza suggests that the interruption of prescription ceases when the award is published because the publication of the award gives rise to a new prescription period of 30 years” (emphasis added).
Because the aforesaid remark was obiter (non-binding), Mabuza did not constitute the binding authority of the LAC that an arbitration award would indeed constitute a ‘Judgment Debt’ for the purposes of the Prescription Act. The LAC ultimately considered a finding on this unnecessary because the various legal action taken in that matter had suspended the running of prescription, with a finding on the specific issue therefore not being necessary.
The Labour Court has now spoken more emphatically. In the recent Judgment of Ramatapa v The Property Practitioners’ Regulatory Authority and Others (“Ramatapa”)5, the Labour Court was faced with a contempt of court application in respect of an arbitration award issued in November 2020. The award was made in terms of the Employment Equity Act and included a Ruling that the applicant employees be placed on the employer’s basic-plus-benefits salary structure. It was subsequently certified by the CCMA on 30 March 2021.
In response to the contempt of court application, the Employer inter alia contended that the award had prescribed in November 2023, after a period of three years had elapsed. When examining the above authorities, the Labour Court went on to say as follows:
“Third, that the prescription period applicable to a statutory arbitration award that finally determines the LRA claim is that applicable to a judgment debt …”
“It would be anomalous if a CCMA award prescribed after three years whereas an order of the Labour Court prescribed after 30 years, because the enforceability of a final determination of constitutional rights would then depend solely upon the forum to which Parliament had directed the dispute” (emphasis added, footnotes omitted).
The Judgment in Ramatapa confirms that there is no material distinction between an arbitration award and a Labour Court Order for the purposes of the Prescription Act. Both constitute ‘Judgment Debts’ for the purposes of the Prescription Act and therefore give rise to a thirty-year period of prescription. The Court went on to find the Employer’s Chief Executive Officer in contempt (for reasons not germane to this article).
The Labour Court’s Judgment in Ramatapa is also consistent with an earlier unreported Judgment of the Labour Court in Department of Employment and Labour v Khan and Others (“Khan”)6 where the Labour Court was faced with a claim that a different period of prescription applied pre and post certification. The Court held as follows in respect of that argument:
“[129] All this begs the question, what purpose would be achieved in terms of the LRA if a different period of prescription were to apply pre-certification and post-certification? I can discern no benefit whatsoever in that regard.
[130] To the contrary, it appears to me to be entirely unnecessary to apply different prescription periods based on when an award is certified in circumstances where certification does not fundamentally alter the nature of the award, the causa giving rise to it, or the debt embodied in it.
[131] Certification, viewed in this light, is entirely a practical device in relation to enforcement. It would not be sensible to view it as altering the status of the award, which remains as it always was.”
It is noteworthy that the Labour Court in Khan, like in Ramatapa, confirmed that arbitration awards constitute ‘Judgment Debts’ that only prescribe after thirty years.
The upshot of the above decisions is that employers cannot expect to escape the operation of arbitration awards through a three-year prescription period. This remains the case even where an award has not been certified.
1 Act 68 of 1969
2 Act 66 of 1995
3 (2018) 39 ILJ 1213 (CC)
4 (2019) 40 ILJ 117 (LAC)
5 Unreported as yet (marked reportable), Case No: 2026-145875, Harvey J, delivered 7 August 2026.
6 (JR133/24) [2025] ZALCJHB 597 (15 December 2025)
