Pitje and Another v Van Der Merwe and Another (25095/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 174 (23 September 2010)

Pitje and Another v Van Der Merwe and Another (25095/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 174 (23 September 2010)

The court found that the first two grounds advanced by the applicants for recusal were without merit and unsupported by the facts. No other judge had made findings of irregularity or injustice against the presiding judge, and the procedural steps regarding the hearing date were properly followed. The applicants failed to establish any reasonable apprehension of bias based on these grounds. However, the third ground, namely the pending complaint lodged by Mr Pitje with the Judicial Services Commission, was considered sufficient to create a perception of possible bias in the mind of a reasonable litigant. To maintain the integrity of the judicial process and avoid any appearance of...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 174
Parties
Applicant: S N Pitje; Applicant: N Pitje; Respondent: G T Van Der Merwe; Respondent: A P J Els
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2010
Case Number
25095/09
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Recusal of Presiding Judge During Leave to Appeal Proceedings
Outcome
The presiding judge recused herself from hearing the application for leave to appeal.
Judges
S Potterill
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judge, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Leave to Appeal, Costs in the Cause
Civil Procedure Recusal of Judge Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Leave to Appeal Costs in the Cause

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S N Pitje

Applicant

N Pitje

Applicant

G T Van Der Merwe

Respondent

A P J Els

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Recusal of Presiding Judge During Leave to Appeal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presiding judge should recuse herself from hearing the application for leave to appeal due to alleged bias.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the judge.
  3. 3 Whether the lodging of a complaint with the Judicial Services Commission constitutes grounds for recusal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first two grounds advanced by the applicants for recusal were without merit and unsupported by the facts. No other judge had made findings of irregularity or injustice against the presiding judge, and the procedural steps regarding the hearing date were properly followed. The applicants failed to establish any reasonable apprehension of bias based on these grounds. However, the third ground, namely the pending complaint lodged by Mr Pitje with the Judicial Services Commission, was considered sufficient to create a perception of possible bias in the mind of a reasonable litigant. To maintain the integrity of the judicial process and avoid any appearance of...

Court Disposition

The presiding judge recused herself from hearing the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

  • I recuse myself from the application for leave to appeal.
  • The costs of this application are costs in the cause.