Court intervention protects Startek from R37.7 million execution amid dispute with dismissed employees.
Image: AI-Generated
The Labour Court in Durban has halted the execution of a R37.7 million judgment against outsourcing company Aegis Outsourcing South Africa (Pty) Ltd, trading as Startek, ruling that former employees who sought to enforce the payment acted unreasonably and in bad faith by pressing ahead with execution while the company was preparing a further appeal.
Acting Judge Sean Snyman granted an urgent application by Startek to suspend a writ of execution that had frozen the company's only operating bank account. The court also ordered the sheriff to lift the attachment and directed Standard Bank to remove the hold placed on the account.
The dispute stems from a lengthy labour battle dating back nearly a decade. The employees, led by Krishnaveni Govender and 20 others, were originally employed by Telkom before being transferred to WNS Global Services. They were dismissed by WNS in 2016 and subsequently challenged the fairness of their dismissals through various legal processes.
In February 2024, the Labour Appeal Court ruled in favour of the workers, finding their dismissals unfair and ordering their reinstatement, together with back pay. However, that order was made against WNS and not Startek.
By the time the Labour Appeal Court issued its ruling, Startek had already acquired WNS's business as a going concern through a section 197 transfer that took effect on 1 October 2021. The employees subsequently launched proceedings in the Labour Court seeking to enforce the Labour Appeal Court's order against Startek.
In November 2025, the Labour Court ruled in the employees' favour, effectively making Startek responsible for implementing the reinstatement order and satisfying the financial obligations arising from the earlier Labour Appeal Court judgment.
Startek challenged that ruling and sought leave to appeal. While that application was pending, the employees obtained a writ of execution and attached the company's bank account. The company successfully secured an urgent stay of execution in December 2025.
The dispute reignited after the Labour Court dismissed Startek's application for leave to appeal on 5 May 2026. Shortly thereafter, the employees instructed the sheriff to execute the writ again, resulting in the attachment of Startek's only operating bank account and the freezing of approximately R37.8 million.
According to the judgment, Startek had informed the employees and their legal representatives that it intended to petition the Labour Appeal Court for leave to appeal and requested undertakings that no execution steps would be taken until the appeal process could be pursued. The company said it was entitled under the Labour Appeal Court's rules to file such a petition by 27 May 2026.
Judge Snyman found that the employees ignored those requests and proceeded with execution despite knowing that a further appeal process was imminent.
The court rejected arguments that the application lacked urgency. Judge Snyman held that the freezing of Startek's sole operating bank account meant the company could not conduct its business, pay staff, settle creditors or meet obligations to SARS. He concluded that the company would suffer potentially devastating consequences if relief was not granted immediately.
"The applicant cannot do business," the judge noted, adding that refusing urgent intervention could be destructive to the company's operations.
The court further found that a stay of execution was justified because the underlying basis for Startek's liability remains the subject of an intended appeal. Judge Snyman stressed that the merits of the proposed appeal were not relevant to the stay application. Instead, the critical question was whether a successful appeal could alter the legal foundation of the order being enforced.
He found that it could.
The judgment also highlighted the risk of irreparable prejudice to Startek if the money was paid out before the appeal process was exhausted. The court accepted that the employees would likely be unable to repay the funds if the appeal later succeeded, potentially leaving the company with little prospect of recovering the money.
By contrast, the judge found that the employees would suffer less prejudice from a temporary delay because they could still enforce the judgment if the appeal ultimately failed. Any delay in payment could also be compensated through interest.
Judge Snyman was particularly critical of the conduct of the employees who opposed the application. He described their actions as unreasonable and said they had effectively rushed to execute the judgment despite being fully aware that Startek intended to pursue a petition for leave to appeal.
The court found that the employees had ignored correspondence seeking an undertaking not to execute, failed to engage with Startek's attorneys and proceeded with execution before the deadline they had been given to respond had even expired.
The judge went as far as characterising the conduct as an abuse of process and said the execution appeared designed to place undue pressure on the company and its business.
One employee, Krishnaveni Govender, was treated differently by the court. The judgment noted that she did not seek execution of the order and had indicated she would abide by the court's decision. As a result, she was excluded from the costs order.
The Labour Court ultimately suspended the writ of execution pending the outcome of Startek's petition to the Labour Appeal Court and any subsequent appeal proceedings. The sheriff was ordered to remove any attachment already effected, while Standard Bank was directed to lift the hold on the company's account.
The remaining employees who opposed the application were ordered to pay the costs of the urgent proceedings.
IOL News