Browsing: Court Online

New directive took effect on 27 July 2026. Temporary Johannesburg Labour Court arrangements extended until 31 December 2026 Matters that are not hearing-ready will no longer be enrolled. The Labour Court in Johannesburg has introduced sweeping procedural changes aimed at improving the administration of urgent applications and motion proceedings while extending temporary arrangements put in place during the ongoing renovation of the court's Braamfontein premises. Directive 02 of 2026, issued by Labour Court Judge President E Molahlehi, took effect on 27 July 2026. It introduces stricter case management requirements for practitioners, litigants and Registrars appearing before the Johannesburg Labour Court and extends the temporary operational measures that have been in place since 2025. Temporary court arrangements continue The directive confirms that renovations to the Labour Court building in Braamfontein have not yet been completed, requiring the continuation of Directive 03 of 2025 until 31 December 2026, unless the Judge President directs otherwise. Under the temporary arrangements, Registrar services will continue operating from the fifth floor of 86 Juta Street in Braamfontein. Labour Court trials will continue to be heard at the High Court in Johannesburg, while unopposed motions, contempt applications and interlocutory proceedings will remain at the Land Court in Randburg. Opposed motions and urgent applications will continue to be conducted virtually. Directive targets operational shortcomings Judge President Molahlehi says the practice direction was introduced to address systemic problems affecting the urgent and unopposed courts. According to the directive, late filing of documents, incomplete CaseLines bundles, inconsistent court practices and the enrolment of matters that are not hearing-ready have resulted in unnecessary delays and inefficiencies. The directive states that these challenges have been worsened by the absence of firm cut-off deadlines, uncertainty regarding roles and responsibilities, and inconsistent enforcement of procedural requirements, leading to inefficiency and ad hoc compromises in urgent proceedings. Judge President Molahlehi says the new measures are intended to restore procedural discipline, standardise practice, and ensure that matters are properly prepared before being placed before the Court. Hearing readiness becomes compulsory The directive introduces a strict hearing-readiness principle. No matter may be enrolled unless it is procedurally compliant and capable of being heard. Following scheduling on Court Online, parties must ensure that their documents are fully updated, indexed and paginated, with a complete CaseLines bundle verified by the Registrar. Judge President Molahlehi states the Registrar shall refuse final enrolment of any non-compliant matter. The directive also makes it clear that scheduling a matter on Court Online does not amount to final enrolment. The directive clarifies that Court Online serves as the official filing platform, while CaseLines is the electronic bundle used by judges during hearings. A matter will not be regarded as properly before the court unless its CaseLines bundle is complete, correctly sequenced and updated in accordance with Directive 1 of 2025. New timelines for unopposed applications Applicants in unopposed matters must create a complete CaseLines bundle within five court days after receiving a hearing date. The bundle must then be updated and finalised no later than 14 court days before the hearing unless the court directs otherwise. Registrars have been instructed to refuse enrolment of matters where bundles are incomplete, improperly indexed or paginated, or where documents have been filed outside the prescribed time limits. Stricter management of the urgent roll The directive also introduces firm deadlines for urgent matters. Parties must achieve full compliance by 1pm on the Thursday preceding a Tuesday hearing week, while Registrars must close the urgent roll by 4pm on the same day. Only compliant matters may appear on the final roll, and any matter that fails to meet the deadline may be refused enrolment or struck from the roll. No amendments may be made once the roll has closed without judicial authorisation. Exception remains for genuine urgency The directive preserves judicial discretion where genuine urgency exists. It states only matters of genuine and demonstrable urgency may warrant deviation from the prescribed process. In those instances, the Registrar must immediately refer the matter to the Deputy Judge President, Judge President or Senior Judge for directions before it may be enrolled outside the ordinary process. Conviction.co.za Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.

What's Hot

South Africa is sliding into a household debt trap, and banks must act now

Homeowners’ associations warned against using access controls as a debt collection tool

GBV requires a stronger public health response that goes beyond the justice system

Browsing: Court Online

Johannesburg Labour Court tightens rules for urgent applications and motion proceedings

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

Irregular levy increases, mismanagement, and legal threats in a sectional title scheme

South Africa is sliding into a household debt trap, and banks must act now

Homeowners’ associations warned against using access controls as a debt collection tool

GBV requires a stronger public health response that goes beyond the justice system

Former Gender Equality commissioner Mbuyiselo Botha denied leave payment claim

Latest posts

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

OUR PICKS

Legal Practice Council ordered to disclose records behind English-only admission exams

Attorney who briefs advocate remains liable for fees unless agreement states otherwise

R112,000 hospital bill reduced to R750, allowing refugee child’s body to be released for burial

Subscribe to Updates

What's Hot

Browsing: Court Online