Mavudzi and Another v Makamu and Others (2024-00057 ; 2024-028945) [2024] ZAGPJHC 678 (19 July 2024)

Mavudzi and Another v Makamu and Others (2024-00057 ; 2024-028945) [2024] ZAGPJHC 678 (19 July 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish good cause for the consent sought under section 47(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicants did not clarify the nature of the contemplated civil proceedings against Acting Judge Makamu, nor did they articulate a justiciable issue that would make it fair, just and equitable to grant consent. Without a clear indication of the proceedings or the issues to be adjudicated, the court could not determine whether there was a case for the judge to answer. The principles from Soller, Engelbrecht, and Nagan require that good cause be shown and that the proceedings present a justiciable issue. The applicants' failure to meet these...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 678
Parties
Applicant: Maxwell Ndlovu Mavudzi; Applicant: Sello Athlone Rathete; Respondent: Mudunwazi Samuel Makamu N.O.; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg (The State); Respondent: Jeremiah Nyasha Musiwacho Dube; Respondent: Rebecca Dube; Respondent: Maxwell Mavudzi; Respondent: Constance Ramone; Respondent: Edward Shoniwa; Respondent: Zamaswazi Radebe; Respondent: Bongani Mbonane
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 July 2024
Case Number
2024-00057 ; 2024-028945
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Permission to Institute Civil Proceedings Against a Judge Under Section 47 of the Superior Courts Act; Urgent Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicants failed to establish good cause for consent to sue the judge.
Judges
D Mlambo
Legal Topics
Superior Courts Act Section 47, Good Cause Requirement, Judicial Immunity, Urgency, Consent to Sue Judge
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Superior Courts Act Section 47 Good Cause Requirement Judicial Immunity Urgency Consent to Sue Judge

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxwell Ndlovu Mavudzi

Applicant

Sello Athlone Rathete

Applicant

Mudunwazi Samuel Makamu N.O.

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg (The State)

Respondent

Jeremiah Nyasha Musiwacho Dube

Respondent

Rebecca Dube

Respondent

Maxwell Mavudzi

Respondent

Constance Ramone

Respondent

Edward Shoniwa

Respondent

Zamaswazi Radebe

Respondent

Bongani Mbonane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Permission to Institute Civil Proceedings Against a Judge Under Section 47 of the Superior Courts Act; Urgent Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for permission to institute civil proceedings against a judge of the Superior Court under section 47(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the contemplated proceedings against the judge are sufficiently identified and justiciable to warrant granting consent.
  3. 3 Whether the urgency and non-compliance with the Uniform Rules of Court should be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish good cause for the consent sought under section 47(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicants did not clarify the nature of the contemplated civil proceedings against Acting Judge Makamu, nor did they articulate a justiciable issue that would make it fair, just and equitable to grant consent. Without a clear indication of the proceedings or the issues to be adjudicated, the court could not determine whether there was a case for the judge to answer. The principles from Soller, Engelbrecht, and Nagan require that good cause be shown and that the proceedings present a justiciable issue. The applicants' failure to meet these...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; applicants failed to establish good cause for consent to sue the judge.

Orders

  • The First and Second Applicants’ non-compliance with the Uniform Rules of Court is condoned and the matter is heard as one of urgency in terms of Uniform Rule 6(12).
  • The request by counsel appearing for the DPP to make legal submissions is granted.