South Africa Case Law

S v Moema (Review) (HC02/2025)

S v Moema (Review) (HC02/2025) [2025] ZANWHC 36 (11 February 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

HC02/2025

Judges

T Masike, FMM Reid

The recusal of Magistrate Tsoku after evidence had been led rendered her absolutely unavailable to continue with the trial, making her functus officio. Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not permit continuation of the trial before another magistrate in these circumstances, as evidence had already been adduced. The proceedings are therefore a nullity and must be set aside. The matter is referred back to the National Prosecuting Authority to determine whether to institute proceedings de novo before a different presiding officer. The accused cannot demand a verdict at this stage, as…

Source excerpt

• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Nullity Of Proceedings
• Right To Fair Trial
• De Novo Trial

Rolf v Cupido and Another (714/2024; SH 61/2021)

Rolf v Cupido and Another (714/2024; SH 61/2021) [2025] ZAMPMHC 18 (27 January 2025)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

714/2024; SH 61/2021

Judge

MBG Langa

The court found that while the magistrate's refusal to postpone the trial for the applicant to obtain the transcribed record and prepare expert evidence was irregular, it did not amount to bias or justify recusal. The applicant failed to establish reasonable grounds for apprehension of bias, either from the magistrate's conduct in court or his private legal practice. The administrative pressures and the magistrate's statements regarding finalising part-heard matters were not sufficient to demonstrate actual or perceived bias. The court granted condonation for the late filing of the supplement…

Source excerpt

• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Judicial Bias
• Postponement Of Trial
• Sexual Offences Act
• Condonation Application

Steenkamp v Louw (A2024/070314)

Steenkamp v Louw (A2024/070314) [2025] ZAGPJHC 43 (27 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2024/070314

Judges

Siwendu, Liebenberg

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.

• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Apprehension Of Bias
• Defamation
• Postponement Of Trial
• Costs Orders
• Recusal-of-judicial-officer

Kgatuke and Another v Additional Magistrate C Van Niekerk (Langley) and Another (REV120/23)

Kgatuke and Another v Additional Magistrate C Van Niekerk (Langley) and Another (REV120/23) [2024] ZALMPPHC 199 (4 December 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

REV120/23

Judges

Kganyago, Pillay

The High Court found that the Magistrate's decision to reopen the State's case and admit previously excluded video and audio evidence after both parties had closed their cases and arguments were complete constituted a gross irregularity. The Magistrate, lacking inherent jurisdiction, was not entitled to review her own interlocutory ruling at that stage. The refusal to recuse herself, in the context of her conduct and the timing of the ruling, created a reasonable apprehension of bias and undermined the Applicants' right to a fair trial. The cumulative effect of these irregularities justified…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Magistrates Court Proceedings
• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Fair Trial Rights

S v Tsame and Another (01/2024 ; 02/2024)

S v Tsame and Another (01/2024 ; 02/2024) [2024] ZANWHC 318; 2025 (2) SACR 191 (NWM) (25 October 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

01/2024 ; 02/2024

Judges

Petersen, Wessels

High Court review of a magistrate’s recusal on medical grounds, holding that the recusal was justified but the magistrate lacked power to order the trials de novo.

• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Gross Irregularity
• De Novo Trial
• Magistrates Powers
• Fair Trial Rights
• Judicial-recusal

Odumegwu v Regional Court Magistrate Booysens (2023/075664)

Odumegwu v Regional Court Magistrate Booysens (2023/075664) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1062 (22 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/075664

Judge

AMM

The court held that the review application was premature as no exceptional circumstances existed to justify intervention before the conclusion of the criminal trial. The applicant was out on bail, and the trial was well advanced. The alleged bias and refusal to recuse could be addressed on appeal if the applicant was convicted. The court emphasized that immediate review of recusal refusals in ongoing criminal proceedings would disrupt the administration of justice and potentially overwhelm the courts. The application was dismissed solely on the ground of prematurity, with no determination on…

Source excerpt

• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Bias
• Prematurity Of Review
• Fair Trial Rights
• Judicial Temperament

Thulo v S (CA57/2023)

Thulo v S (CA57/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 231 (11 September 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA57/2023

Judges

FMM Reid, NG Laubscher

The magistrate, having presided over the bail application and learned of the appellant's previous convictions, failed to recuse himself from the subsequent trial, resulting in a reasonable perception of bias. This irregularity was compounded by the magistrate's failure to provide reasons for the conviction and to allow the appellant an opportunity to present evidence after the section 174 application. These procedural defects violated the appellant's right to a fair trial. The delay in filing the appeal was due to difficulties in obtaining the transcribed record, which were not attributable t…

Source excerpt

• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Irregular Trial Procedure
• Right To Fair Trial
• Condonation For Late Appeal

Soares v Geber and Another (2024-087263)

Soares v Geber and Another (2024-087263) [2024] ZAGPPHC 798; 2025 (1) SACR 493 (GP) (16 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-087263

Judge

Strijdom

The High Court granted an urgent interim interdict staying Germiston harassment proceedings pending review of a magistrate’s refusal to recuse.

• Interim Interdict
• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Bias
• Access To Court
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Interim-interdict

Mokgomole v Sekwela (REV76/2024)

Mokgomole v Sekwela (REV76/2024) [2024] ZALMPPHC 133 (18 July 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

REV76/2024

Judges

TC Tshidada, N Gaisa

High Court review of a magistrate’s recusal in a dog-bite damages case; the court held the apprehension of bias was unreasonable and set the recusal aside.

• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Bias
• Actio De Pauperie
• Fair Trial Rights
• Judicial-recusal
• Reasonable-apprehension-of-bias

S v Diswane (B349/2023)

S v Diswane (B349/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 587 (25 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

B349/2023

Judges

K Strydom, M.P. Motha

The High Court held that the recusal of the magistrate rendered him absolutely unavailable, resulting in the part-heard proceedings being a nullity and set aside ex lege. There is no need for the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to set aside such proceedings, nor to order that they commence de novo. The authority to recommence proceedings rests solely with the National Prosecuting Authority, which may decide whether to re-indict the accused. The judgment emphasized that referring such matters for special review is unnecessary and burdensome, particularly where the accused's co…

Source excerpt

• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Nullity Of Proceedings
• Inherent Jurisdiction
• Commencement De Novo
• Criminal Procedure Act Lacuna