Does furnishing a security bond stay the enforcement of an arbitration award in an archived review application?

Section 217 of the Constitution sets the parameters within which organs of state must procure goods and services. The Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (“PPPFA”) and the Preferential Procurement Regulations give practical effect to these parameters. The legal framework seeks to balance fairness and competitiveness with the state’s obligation to procure goods and services efficiently and responsibly. The Supreme Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Urban Icon (Pty) Ltd v South African National Roads Agency SOC Ltd highlights the complexities of this task.

The Constitutional Court’s judgment in Long v SAB (Pty) Ltd (2019) 40 ILJ 965 (CC) (“Long’’) is often cited in unfair suspension disputes. In Long, the Constitutional Court ruled that an employee generally does not suffer material prejudice as a result of a precautionary suspension, even if they were denied an opportunity to make representations before the suspension.

On 12 May 2025, a full bench of the High Court handed down judgment in Scott v The National Credit Regulator.1 It concerned whether, once a credit agreement was subject to a debt review process, the debtor remained in default under the original credit
agreement or if the debt review process created a new agreement between the parties, thereby purging the default. This bears consequences for the applicability of the in duplum rule.

Section 11(5) of the Mine Health and Safety Act (MHSA) obliges every employer in the mining industry to investigate all reportable accidents and identify the underlying causes of the accident. Often, the employer engages third-party experts to conduct the
investigations through the employer’s legal representatives in order to claim legal privilege over these reports. This raises the question whether a presiding officer can compel the employer to disclose a report during a mine health and safety inquiry.