Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Steenkamp v Louw (A2024/070314) [2025] ZAGPJHC 43 (27 January 2025)
Appeal against dismissal of a magistrate’s recusal application in a defamation trial; the High Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias and dismissed the appeal.
Ndamase v Commissioner: Private Inquiry into the affairs of SNS Holdings (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Others (2023-019694) [2024] ZAGPPHC 407 (13 May 2024)
The High Court dismissed a review of a s 417 and 418 company inquiry summons, holding the requested documents were relevant and no bias or privacy breach was shown.
S v Mlambo and Others (CC31/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 340 (8 April 2024)
The High Court dismissed a recusal application in a criminal trial, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and treating the alleged irregularity as immaterial.
Chithi and Others v The Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development & Land Reform and Others (LCC125/2008) [2021] ZALCC 20 (16 August 2021)
The Land Claims Court dismissed an application to recuse Acting Judge Canca from hearing a leave to appeal against a costs order disallowing legal fees.
Morake v Van Schalkwyk and Another (A765/2014) [2018] ZAGPJHC 611 (29 October 2018)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish any reasonable or objective grounds for apprehension of bias on the part of the magistrate. The applicant was given an opportunity to object to the constitution of the court at the outset and did not do so. The photograph of the magistrate reading a docket was not shown to be related to the applicant's case, and the evidence indicated it concerned unrelated matters. The court held that the apprehension of bias was illusory and not supported by facts. Consequently, the application for review and all ancillary orders were dismissed. The cou…
Source excerpt
Mabe v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1471/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 101 (29 March 2017)
The Labour Court dismissed a review of a condonation ruling, finding the applicant’s explanation for a long late referral inadequate and bias allegations unsupported.
Porritt and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (978/2013) [2014] ZASCA 168; [2015] 1 All SA 169 (SCA); 2015 (1) SACR 533 (SCA) (21 October 2014)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the removal of prosecutors on the basis of apprehension of bias does not entitle the accused to an acquittal under section 106(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The test for removal of a prosecutor for bias is not the same as that for the recusal of a judicial officer. Prosecutors are inherently partisan in adversarial proceedings, and their prior involvement or funding by SARS does not automatically compromise the fairness of the trial. The correct test is whether substantive unfairness arises on the facts, not a general standard of independence. The cou…
Source excerpt
Farmsecure Grains (Pty) Ltd v Du Toit (A9/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 187 (13 August 2013)
Appeal against refusal of a trial-judge recusal application. The court held the apprehension of bias was not objectively reasonable and dismissed the appeal.
Protech Khuthele (Pty) Ltd and Another v Wabile NO and Others (JR 179/11) [2012] ZALCJHB 168; (2013) 34 ILJ 1246 (LC) (12 October 2012)
The court held that the commissioner’s prior association with SACCAWU, a COSATU affiliate, did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias in arbitration proceedings involving NUM, another COSATU affiliate. There was no direct relationship between the commissioner and NUM, nor did the subject matter of the arbitration arise from the commissioner’s prior employment or SACCAWU’s affiliation. The mere fact of shared trade union federation membership is insufficient to establish bias. The commissioner was not obliged to disclose his prior association, as it was not reasonably relevant to a recus…
Source excerpt
Armstrong v South African Civil Aviation Authority (J504/11) [2011] ZALCJHB 239 (29 September 2011)
The court found that the employer's initial decision not to proceed with disciplinary action was not equivalent to a dismissal of charges, as no formal disciplinary process had previously taken place. The applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention in incomplete disciplinary proceedings. The court also found no merit in the allegations of apprehension of bias or infringement of representation rights, as these issues were either unfounded or not raised in the original application. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed as there was…
Source excerpt
Explore more
