DIS officers face fresh delay amid court ultimatum confusion
Mpho Mokwape | Monday May 11, 2026 06:00
The officers returned to the High Court on Monday (May 4, 2026), expecting progress after the government failed to meet a three-month ultimatum issued earlier this year.
Instead, they were informed that the ultimatum process had not been properly activated because they had not formally served the government with the court’s report. According to the officers, the development came as a shock.
“We thought everything had already been done. We were given the document and understood it was part of the court process. No one explained that we had to serve it ourselves,” one of the affected officers said.
The confusion centers on a report issued by the court in early February 2026, which gave the government three months to comply with an earlier judgment ordering payment of long-overdue salary back pay. The ultimatum was seen as a final warning to the state after years of non-compliance.
However, when the officers approached the Registrar this week to report that the deadline had passed without payment, they were told that the government had not been formally served with the ultimatum document. Without that step, the countdown to enforcement could not be considered legally binding.
“The Registrar told us clearly that service is required. We were not aware of that requirement. We believed the court handled everything,” the officer said disappointedly.
As a result, the officers must now formally serve the government with the same report before any further legal action can proceed. This effectively resets the three-month compliance period, prolonging a dispute that has already stretched over many years.
“We feel frustrated and confused. We have followed the case for so long, attended court, and complied with everything we were told. Now, we are being told we missed a step that no one explained to us,” one officer decried.
The officers say they were only given the document to read and understand its contents, not to be formally delivered to the respondents.
“They just handed us the letter. We read it, and we thought it was already in effect. We didn’t know it was our responsibility to take it further,” officers explained.
Legal processes typically require that court orders and related documents be formally served on the parties involved, ensuring official proof that the recipients are aware of the directive. In this case, the absence of that step has delayed enforcement.
The officers now face at least three more months of waiting before they can return to court to seek enforcement or penalties for non-compliance.
“This means more time without what is rightfully ours. Some of us have been waiting for years. This is not just a delay; it affects our families and our lives,” one officer said.
The back pay dispute dates back decades for some of the officers, with claims reaching as far back as 2001. Despite a High Court ruling in June 2024 confirming that the government’s refusal to pay was unlawful, the matter has remained unresolved.
After the 2024 judgment, the government attempted to challenge the ruling through various legal avenues, including an application to set it aside. Those efforts failed, and the courts upheld the officers’ entitlement to payment.
Even so, implementation has not followed.
The February 2026 report was issued under legal provisions that allow the court to formally notify the government of its failure to comply with an order. It was intended to compel action and underline the seriousness of ignoring court judgments.
Now, due to the procedural gap, that effort has stalled.
“We were hopeful when the court gave the ultimatum. It felt like things were finally moving. Now we are back to waiting again,” one officer said.
The officers say the lack of clear guidance has added to their frustration.
“If we had been told to serve the document, we would have done it immediately. We are not lawyers. We depend on the system to guide us,” they stated.
Some officers expressed concern that the delay could further complicate enforcement or give the impression that they had not acted promptly, saying it feels like they are being punished for something they didn’t know, even though they acted in good faith.
The group is now preparing to serve the government with the court report as instructed. Once that is done, a new three-month period will begin, after which they may return to court if there is still no compliance.
Despite the setback, the officers say they remain committed to pursuing the matter.
“We have come too far to give up. We will follow the process again, even if it means more waiting,” one officer said.
Meanwhile, for the officers, however, the issue is less about legal technicalities and more about the continued delay in receiving what has already been confirmed as owed to them.
They explained that they want closure because the court has already ruled, and they just need the order implemented.
As the process resets, the officers face renewed uncertainty, with no immediate resolution in sight. The coming months will determine whether the government complies once properly served, or whether the case returns to court yet again for further enforcement action