S.A.V v H.J.V (Recusal) (2138/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1295 (29 November 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 1295
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- M Snyman
- Case number
- 2138/2021
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- M Snyman
- Case number
- 2138/2021
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant failed to establish any facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable, objective and informed person to apprehend that the judge would not bring an impartial mind to bear on the adjudication of the case. The allegations made by the applicant were unsubstantiated and did not meet the legal threshold for recusal. Accordingly, the application for recusal was dismissed as lacking merit.
Court disposition
Application for recusal dismissed.
Orders
- The application for recusal is dismissed.
- Any party desiring reasons for the decision may request them in terms of the rules of court.
02
Material facts
Parties
S[...] A[...] V[...]
Applicant Counsel: EA LourensH[...] J[...] V[...]
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Recusal Application / Application for Recusal Prior to Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the presiding judge should recuse himself from hearing the matter.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought the recusal of the presiding judge, alleging circumstances that may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias or lack of impartiality. The applicant argued that the interests of justice required the judge to step down to ensure a fair hearing.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposed the recusal application, contending that no valid grounds for recusal existed and that the applicant's concerns were unfounded. The respondent maintained that the judge had conducted proceedings impartially and that the application was without merit.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others 1999 (4) SA 147 (CC)
A judge must recuse himself if there exists a reasonable apprehension of bias, assessed objectively from the perspective of a reasonable person.
- 02
S v Basson 2007 (3) SA 582 (CC)
The mere perception of bias, without substantiated grounds, is insufficient to warrant recusal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to establish any facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable, objective and informed person to apprehend that the judge would not bring an impartial mind to bear on the adjudication of the case. The allegations made by the applicant were unsubstantiated and did not meet the legal threshold for recusal. Accordingly, the application for recusal was dismissed as lacking merit.
Obiter and limits
- Parties are reminded that requests for reasons for decisions may be made in terms of the rules of court.
- Recusal applications should not be used as a tactical device to delay proceedings.
Court disposition
Application for recusal dismissed.
- The application for recusal is dismissed.
- Any party desiring reasons for the decision may request them in terms of the rules of court.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NUMBER: 2138 / 2021
1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
3) REVISED: YES/NO
SIGNATURE
DATE: 29 NOVEMBER 2024
In the matter between :
S[...] A[...] V[...]
Applicant
and
H[...] J[...] V[...]
Respondent
This Judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties and or parties’ representatives by email and by being uploaded to CaseLines. The date and time for the hand down is deemed to be at 10h00 on 29 November 2024.
JUDGMENT – RECUSAL
M SNYMAN, AJ
[1] Before me is an application for my recusal. The application was heard before the application for leave to appeal.
[2] I find that there is no merit in the recusal application.
Order
[3] The following order is therefore issued:
1. The application for recusal is dismissed;
2. Should any of the parties desire reasons for that decision, it can be requested in terms of the rules of court.
BY ORDER
DATE HEARD: 22 November 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29 November 2024 Counsel for Applicant: Adv EA Lourens Applicants’ Attorneys: Werner Roos & Immelman Attorneys
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.