Seriti and Another v Judicial Service Commission and Others (32193/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 332; 2023 (5) SA 304 (GJ) (14 April 2023)

Seriti and Another v Judicial Service Commission and Others (32193/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 332; 2023 (5) SA 304 (GJ) (14 April 2023)

The Court held that section 176 of the Constitution does not purport to define who is a judge, but rather regulates the duration of office. The legislative scheme, including the JSC Act and JRCS Act, contemplates judgeship as a lifelong status, with accountability for conduct extending beyond active service. Section 180 of the Constitution expressly authorises Parliament to legislate on procedures for dealing with complaints about judicial officers. There is no logical conflict or inconsistency between section 7(1)(g) of the JSC Act and section 176 of the Constitution. The definition of 'judge' in the JSC Act, which includes retired judges, is constitutionally compliant. The application...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 332
Parties
Applicant: Legoabe Willie Seriti; Applicant: Hendrick Mmolli Thekiso Musi; Respondent: Judicial Service Commission; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: President of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Open Secrets NPC; Respondent: Shadow World Investigations
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 April 2023
Case Number
32193/2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where utilised. Declaration that section 7(1)(g) of the JSC Act is not inconsistent with the Constitution.
Judges
Sutherland DJP, Wepener J, Molahlehi J
Legal Topics
Definition of Judge, Judicial Service Commission Act, Constitution Section 176, Judicial Independence, Oversight of Judicial Conduct
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Definition of Judge Judicial Service Commission Act Constitution Section 176 Judicial Independence Oversight of Judicial Conduct

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Legoabe Willie Seriti

Applicant

Hendrick Mmolli Thekiso Musi

Applicant

Judicial Service Commission

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Open Secrets NPC

Respondent

Shadow World Investigations

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is section 7(1)(g) of the Judicial Service Commission Act inconsistent with section 176 of the Constitution?
  2. 2 Does the definition of 'judge' in the JSC Act impermissibly broaden the constitutional meaning of judge?
  3. 3 Can retired judges be subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the JSC?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that section 176 of the Constitution does not purport to define who is a judge, but rather regulates the duration of office. The legislative scheme, including the JSC Act and JRCS Act, contemplates judgeship as a lifelong status, with accountability for conduct extending beyond active service. Section 180 of the Constitution expressly authorises Parliament to legislate on procedures for dealing with complaints about judicial officers. There is no logical conflict or inconsistency between section 7(1)(g) of the JSC Act and section 176 of the Constitution. The definition of 'judge' in the JSC Act, which includes retired judges, is constitutionally compliant. The application...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where utilised. Declaration that section 7(1)(g) of the JSC Act is not inconsistent with the Constitution.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, where utilised.
  • It is declared that section 7(1)(g) of the JSC Act is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution.