Langa and Others v Hlophe (697/08) [2009] ZASCA 36; [2009] 3 All SA 417 (SCA) ; 2009 (8) BCLR 823 (SCA) (31 March 2009)

Langa and Others v Hlophe (697/08) [2009] ZASCA 36; [2009] 3 All SA 417 (SCA) ; 2009 (8) BCLR 823 (SCA) (31 March 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants, in lodging a complaint of judicial misconduct against the respondent and issuing a media release, did not act institutionally as a court but as individual judges. There is no legal rule, constitutional provision, or authority requiring a complainant—whether a judge or otherwise—to afford the accused judge a hearing before filing a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission. The right to be heard applies to judicial or administrative bodies, not to private individuals acting outside their official capacity. The duties of judges to act with circumspection and uphold the dignity of the judiciary are ethical, not legal, and are not...

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 36
Parties
Appellant: Langa CJ; Appellant: Moseneke DCJ; Appellant: Madala J; Appellant: Mokgoro J; Appellant: O'Regan J; Appellant: Sachs J; Appellant: Ngcobo J; Appellant: Skweyiya J; Appellant: Van Der Westhuizen J; Appellant: Yacoob J; Appellant: Nkabinde J; Appellant: Jafta AJ; Appellant: Kroon AJ; Respondent: Hlophe, Mandlakayise John
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2009
Case Number
697/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (wld), Full Bench
Outcome
Appeal upheld; application dismissed.
Judges
Harms, Streicher, Mthiyane, Nugent, Cloete, Ponnan, Mlambo, Snyders, Mhlantla
Legal Topics
Judicial Misconduct, Right to Be Heard, Declaratory Relief, Judicial Independence
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Judicial Misconduct Right to Be Heard Declaratory Relief Judicial Independence

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Langa CJ

Appellant

Moseneke DCJ

Appellant

Madala J

Appellant

Mokgoro J

Appellant

O'Regan J

Appellant

Sachs J

Appellant

Ngcobo J

Appellant

Skweyiya J

Appellant

Van Der Westhuizen J

Appellant

Yacoob J

Appellant

Nkabinde J

Appellant

Jafta AJ

Appellant

Kroon AJ

Appellant

Hlophe, Mandlakayise John

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (wld), Full Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether judges of the Constitutional Court were legally obliged to afford the respondent a hearing before lodging a complaint of judicial misconduct with the Judicial Service Commission.
  2. 2 Whether the judges were required by law to keep the fact of the complaint confidential and refrain from issuing a media statement.
  3. 3 Whether the lodging of the complaint and publication of the media release violated the respondent's constitutional rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants, in lodging a complaint of judicial misconduct against the respondent and issuing a media release, did not act institutionally as a court but as individual judges. There is no legal rule, constitutional provision, or authority requiring a complainant—whether a judge or otherwise—to afford the accused judge a hearing before filing a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission. The right to be heard applies to judicial or administrative bodies, not to private individuals acting outside their official capacity. The duties of judges to act with circumspection and uphold the dignity of the judiciary are ethical, not legal, and are not...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; application dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the court below is replaced by an order dismissing the application.