Frank Mhlongo and Others v Tryphinah Mokoena N O and Others (865/2020) [2022] ZASCA 78; 2022 (6) SA 129 (SCA) (31 May 2022)

Frank Mhlongo and Others v Tryphinah Mokoena N O and Others (865/2020) [2022] ZASCA 78; 2022 (6) SA 129 (SCA) (31 May 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria retained jurisdiction over matters arising in Mpumalanga until the Minister's notice establishing the Mpumalanga Division took effect on 1 May 2019. The Judge President's Practice Directive No 1 of 2015, specifically clause 1.5, could not lawfully exclude the jurisdiction of the Gauteng Division, as only the Minister is empowered to determine jurisdictional boundaries under section 6(3) of the Superior Courts Act. The Practice Directive was inconsistent with the Act and therefore invalid. The High Court erred in dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction; the appropriate order was to strike the...

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 78
Parties
Appellant: Frank Mhlongo; Appellant: Riebs Khoza; Appellant: Dr Sibuyi; Appellant: Patrick Jones; Respondent: Tryphinah Mokoena NO; Respondent: Nomsa Mhlawuri Manyike; Respondent: Madoda Isaac Tjie NO; Respondent: Tobani Michael Khoza; Respondent: Themba Tibane NO; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Gauteng Division Pretoria; Respondent: Attorney Richard Spoor of Richard Spoor Attorneys Inc; Respondent: Attorney Wiekus du Toit of WDT Attorneys; Respondent: Attorney Errol Goss of Errol Goss Attorneys; Respondent: Thebe Corridors Company (Pty) Ltd (Previously named Sithole Restoration Services); Respondent: The Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Mpumalanga; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2022
Case Number
865/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court's order set aside; Practice Directive clause declared invalid.
Judges
Mocumie, Molemela, Makgoka, Mbatha, Musi
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of High Courts, Practice Directives, Superior Courts Act, Access to Courts, Powers of Judge President
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Jurisdiction of High Courts Practice Directives Superior Courts Act Access to Courts Powers of Judge President

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Mhlongo

Appellant

Riebs Khoza

Appellant

Dr Sibuyi

Appellant

Patrick Jones

Appellant

Tryphinah Mokoena NO

Respondent

Nomsa Mhlawuri Manyike

Respondent

Madoda Isaac Tjie NO

Respondent

Tobani Michael Khoza

Respondent

Themba Tibane NO

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Gauteng Division Pretoria

Respondent

Attorney Richard Spoor of Richard Spoor Attorneys Inc

Respondent

Attorney Wiekus du Toit of WDT Attorneys

Respondent

Attorney Errol Goss of Errol Goss Attorneys

Respondent

Thebe Corridors Company (Pty) Ltd (Previously named Sithole Restoration Services)

Respondent

The Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Mpumalanga

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria had jurisdiction to hear the application.
  2. 2 Whether a Judge President may exclude the jurisdiction of a High Court division by practice directive prior to the Minister's determination under the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether clause 1.5 of Gauteng Division Practice Directive No 1 of 2015 is valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria retained jurisdiction over matters arising in Mpumalanga until the Minister's notice establishing the Mpumalanga Division took effect on 1 May 2019. The Judge President's Practice Directive No 1 of 2015, specifically clause 1.5, could not lawfully exclude the jurisdiction of the Gauteng Division, as only the Minister is empowered to determine jurisdictional boundaries under section 6(3) of the Superior Courts Act. The Practice Directive was inconsistent with the Act and therefore invalid. The High Court erred in dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction; the appropriate order was to strike the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court's order set aside; Practice Directive clause declared invalid.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria is set aside and replaced with: 'The eighth respondent’s point in limine pertaining to jurisdiction is dismissed with costs.'