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
S.A.V v H.J.V (Recusal) (2138/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1295 (29 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for the presiding judge’s recusal, finding no substantiated basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias.
McKonie v Body Corporate, Laborie [2023] ZAGPPHC 477; 58798/2021 (20 June 2023)
The High Court refused recusal, condonation, and leave to appeal after final sequestration, finding no bias and no reasonable prospects of success.
Mkolo v S In re: S v Mkolo and Others (CC40/21) [2022] ZAECBHC 7; 2022 (2) SACR 63 (ECB) (28 April 2022)
The High Court refused an accused's recusal application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias from the judge's robust case-management remarks.
Ex Parte: Goosen and Others (2019/2137) [2019] ZAGPJHC 154; [2019] 3 All SA 161 (GJ); 2020 (1) SA 569 (GJ) (17 May 2019)
The court held that the application for recusal was without merit. The mere fact that Millar AJ was a member of the Legal Practice Council, which appeared as amicus curiae, did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias. His membership was part-time, unremunerated, and did not bind him to the LPC's views in his judicial capacity. The LPC did not have a committed stance on the legal issues, and its role was limited to assisting the court with legal argument. The court further found that an amicus curiae, especially one invited by the court, does not have standing to move for the recusal of a…
Source excerpt
Nkabinde and Another v Judicial Service Commission and Others (CCT122/16) [2016] ZACC 25; 2016 (11) BCLR 1429 (CC); 2017 (3) SA 119 (CC) (24 August 2016)
The application for rescission is dismissed because Rule 42(1)(a) does not apply to orders made at Conference where litigants have no right to be present. The applicants were aware of the procedure and the principle established in Hlophe, which dictates that where the Court lacks a quorum due to disqualification of its members, the application must be dismissed and cannot be left pending. The applicants' right of access to court was not infringed, as the procedure followed is consistent with the Constitution and the Rules of the Court. The suggestion that disqualified Justices participated ir…
Source excerpt
Hlophe v Premier of the Western Cape Province, Hlophe v Freedom Under Law and Others (CCT 41/11, CCT 46/11) [2011] ZACC 29; 2012 (1) BCLR 1 (CC) (29 September 2011)
The Court postponed the hearing of the applications for leave to appeal because, following the recusal of three judges who were complainants and potential witnesses, the number of available judges was reduced to seven, which is below the constitutional quorum of eight. The retirement of the Chief Justice further necessitated the appointment of an acting judge to fill the vacancy. The Court determined that it could not proceed with oral argument on the scheduled date due to the lack of quorum and postponed the matter to a future date when a quorum would be constituted. The reasons for the post…
Source excerpt
Lan v OR Tambo International Airport Department of Home Affairs Immigration Admissions and Another (70261/2009) [2010] ZAGPPHC 165; 2011 (3) SA 641 (GNP) (11 October 2010)
The court found that the applicant was unlawfully detained and refused entry despite holding a valid temporary residence permit and complying with all requirements under the Immigration Act and regulations. The examination and interview conducted by the immigration officer were ultra vires, and the refusal to admit the applicant was not justified by law. The officials' disregard for urgent court orders constituted contempt, particularly in the case of Deputy Director-General MacKay, whose conduct showed wilful and mala fide non-compliance until compliance was eventually forced. The court reje…
Source excerpt
Director of Public Prosecutions v Holzen NO and Another (28126/07) [2010] ZAGPJHC 180 (1 September 2010)
The High Court found that the presiding magistrate's findings during the bail application, particularly regarding the strength of the case and the credibility of witnesses, were material and not mere passing remarks. These findings created reasonable grounds for the state to apprehend that the magistrate would not be impartial in the extradition enquiry, as the same evidence would be presented. The magistrate's conduct during the recusal proceedings, including his comments and attitude towards the prosecutor, further fueled suspicion of bias. The court held that the state discharged its onus…
Source excerpt
S v Dlamini (234/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 122 (28 November 2005)
The acting judge recused himself from a criminal trial after concluding that his independence and authority had been compromised by judicial intervention.
Deetlefs v Minister of the South African Defence Force (J5549/00) [2001] ZALC 133 (22 August 2001)
The Labour Court judge recused himself from an application for leave to appeal after allegations that his conduct created a perception of bias.
Explore more
