South Africa Case Law

Mpumalanga Society of Advocates and Another v Judicial Service Commission and Others (2021/55663)

Mpumalanga Society of Advocates and Another v Judicial Service Commission and Others (2021/55663) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1267 (26 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/55663

Judge

Sutherland

The court found that the JSC was aware of and considered all material allegations regarding the candidate's financial conduct and professional character. The late adverse comments submitted by the applicant were substantially the same as those already before the JSC, and the JSC applied its mind to these issues. The candidate's explanation for his financial difficulties and debts was accepted, and there was no evidence of intentional non-disclosure or unethical conduct. The criticisms of the candidate's professional character were largely unsubstantiated opinions, and the JSC had the benefit…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Appointments
• Rationality Review
• Fit And Proper Person
• Public Participation
• Professional Misconduct
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation

Magistrates Commission and Others v Lawrence (388/2020)

Magistrates Commission and Others v Lawrence (388/2020) [2021] ZASCA 165; [2022] 1 All SA 321 (SCA); (2022) 43 ILJ 567 (SCA); 2022 (4) SA 107 (SCA) (2 December 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

388/2020

Judges

Ponnan, Saldulker, Van der Merwe, Molemela, Potterill

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge to magistrate shortlisting, holding that the Bloemfontein committee lacked a quorum and that race-based exclusion was unlawful.

• Judicial Appointments
• Unfair Discrimination
• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Section 174 Constitution
• Affirmative Action
• Administrative Review

Lawrence v Magistrates Commission and Others (1070/2019)

Lawrence v Magistrates Commission and Others (1070/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 269; 2020 (2) SA 526 (FB) (12 December 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1070/2019

Judges

Daffue, Molitsoane

The court found that the Appointments Committee was not quorate during the Bloemfontein shortlisting process, as only five out of ten members were present, contrary to the statutory requirement that a majority constitutes a quorum. The chairperson's purported exercise of discretion to reduce the quorum was held to be unlawful and irrational. The Committee failed to consider all qualifying candidates, unlawfully excluded white candidates from consideration, and did not properly apply section 174(2) of the Constitution or regulation 5 of the Magistrates Act. The shortlisting proceedings were th…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Appointments
• Principle Of Legality
• Quorum Requirements
• Section 174 2 Constitution
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Procedural Fairness

Amos v Minister of Justice and Others (9469/17)

Amos v Minister of Justice and Others (9469/17) [2019] ZAWCHC 130 (12 September 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9469/17

Judge

M Sher

High Court review of a magistrate appointment was granted after a defective interview process. The court remitted the matter for a fresh, properly constituted process.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Appointments
• Substitution Vs Remittal
• Quorum Requirements
• Bias And Procedural Fairness
• Administrative-law

Du Plessis v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (71827/2013)

Du Plessis v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (71827/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 973 (11 December 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

71827/2013

Judge

Makhubele

The High Court dismissed an application to compel or review the Minister’s отказ to appoint a senior magistrate, finding no entitlement to appointment.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Appointments
• Legitimate Expectation
• Adequacy Of Reasons
• Ministerial Discretion
• Administrative-law

Helen Suzman Foundation v Judicial Service Commission and Others (8647/2013)

Helen Suzman Foundation v Judicial Service Commission and Others (8647/2013) [2014] ZAWCHC 136; [2014] 4 All SA 395 (WCC); 2015 (2) SA 498 (WCC) (5 September 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8647/2013

Judge

Le Grange

The court held that the Judicial Service Commission is not legally obliged to disclose the full recording of its private deliberations as part of the Rule 53 record. The summary of deliberations compiled by the Chief Justice, together with the comprehensive documentation and transcripts already provided, satisfies the requirements of Rule 53(1)(b). The applicant is not deprived of the procedural and substantive safeguards intended by the Rule, and the refusal to disclose the full deliberations does not violate constitutional principles of openness, transparency, equality of arms, or access to…

Source excerpt

• Rule 53 Record
• Judicial Appointments
• Access To Information
• Confidentiality Of Deliberations
• Constitutional Rights
• Transparency And Openness

Singh v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (57331/2011)

Singh v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (57331/2011) [2013] ZAEQC 1; 2013 (3) SA 66 (EqC); (2013) 34 ILJ 2807 (EqC) (23 January 2013)

Court

Equality Court

Case number

57331/2011

Judge

A P Ledwaba

The court found that the criteria and policies used by the Magistrates Commission for short-listing and appointing entry level magistrates were unfairly discriminatory as they failed to specifically consider disability, despite constitutional and statutory obligations to promote substantive equality. Section 174(2) of the Constitution, while mentioning race and gender, does not exclude disability, and section 9(3) together with the Equality Act and international conventions require active promotion of disabled persons. The respondents' reliance on race and gender alone was insufficient and th…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Judicial Appointments
• Disability Rights
• Affirmative Action
• Section 174 Constitution
• Substantive Equality

Du Preez v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (368/04 , ECJ24/2006)

Du Preez v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (368/04 , ECJ24/2006) [2006] ZAECHC 17; [2006] 3 All SA 271 (SE); 2006 (9) BCLR 1094 (SE); [2006] 8 BLLR 767 (SE); (2006) 27 ILJ 1811 (SE) (13 April 2006)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

368/2004

Judge

Erasmus

The court found that the shortlisting criteria applied by the Magistrates Commission for the Port Elizabeth regional magistrate posts constituted unfair discrimination against the applicant on the grounds of race and gender. The scoring system created an absolute barrier for white male candidates, excluding them from consideration on merit and experience. While the constitutional imperative to diversify the judiciary is legitimate, the method employed was irrational and disproportionate, failing to balance the need for transformation with the requirement to assess candidates on merit. The res…

Source excerpt

• Affirmative Action
• Unfair Discrimination
• Judicial Appointments
• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Employment Equity
• Burden Of Proof