South Africa Case Law

Mafune v LTT Brake and Clutch/The Manager (Rev17/2023)

Mafune v LTT Brake and Clutch/The Manager (Rev17/2023) [2023] ZALMPTHC 4 (17 March 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

Rev17/2023

Judge

Kganyago

The court found that the applicant failed to establish reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the commissioner. The commissioner had previously adjudicated a matter involving the applicant and had ruled in his favour, demonstrating impartiality. The prior criminal matter involving Bergvlei was unrelated to the present dispute, and Bergvlei was not a party to the current proceedings. The applicant did not bring a formal application for recusal, and the commissioner followed proper trial procedures. The applicant's dissatisfaction with the outcome did not constitute grounds for review u…

Source excerpt

• Small Claims Court Review
• Apprehended Bias
• Recusal
• Finality Of Judgments

Makoro v Erasmus and Another (M 133/2019)

Makoro v Erasmus and Another (M 133/2019) [2020] ZANWHC 15 (12 March 2020)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M 133/2019

Judges

Hendricks, Nonyane

The High Court reviewed and set aside a magistrate’s refusal to recuse himself after finding bias and gross irregularity in the conduct of the trial.

• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Apprehended Bias
• Gross Irregularity
• Review Of Magistrates Court Proceedings
• Recusal
• Apprehended-bias

Sizani v Mpofu and Another (642/2017)

Sizani v Mpofu and Another (642/2017) [2017] ZAECGHC 127 (12 December 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

642/2017

Judges

Pickering, Bloem

The court found that none of the applicant's allegations, whether considered individually or collectively, established actual or apprehended bias on the part of the first respondent. The presumption of impartiality was not rebutted, and the applicant's perceptions were either based on incorrect facts, speculative reasoning, or procedural disagreements that do not amount to bias. The first respondent's conduct in relation to evidentiary rulings, including the admissibility of Exhibit W and the timing of trial-within-a-trial, was consistent with judicial precedent and did not demonstrate bias.…

Source excerpt

• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Apprehended Bias
• Fair Trial Rights
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Section 174 Discharge
• Prosecution By Ambush

S v Jenkins, In re: S v Moosagie and Another (CC 29/2010)

S v Jenkins, In re: S v Moosagie and Another (CC 29/2010) [2013] ZAECPEHC 6 (4 February 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

CC 29/2010

Judge

Chetty

The High Court dismissed an application to recuse the presiding judge, refused condonation for late filing, and dismissed a special-entry application.

• Recusal Of Judge
• Apprehended Bias
• Fair Trial Rights
• Conflict Of Interest
• Special Entry
• Criminal Procedure Act

SACCAWU and Others v President of the Industrial Tribunal and Another (522/98)

SACCAWU and Others v President of the Industrial Tribunal and Another (522/98) [2000] ZASCA 74; 2001 (2) SA 277 (SCA) ; [2001] 2 All SA 117 (A); (2001) 22 ILJ 1311 (SCA) (29 November 2000)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

522/98

Judges

Melunsky, Hefer, Howie, Plewman, Farlam

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants failed to prove apprehended bias by an Industrial Tribunal member, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Apprehended Bias
• Review Of Tribunal Decision
• Onus Of Proof
• Apprehended-bias
• Tribunal-review