Van Schalkwyk v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (24910/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 300; [2024] 6 BLLR 640 (GJ) (19 March 2024)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPJHC 300 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Van Schalkwyk v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (24910/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 300; [2024] 6 BLLR 640 (GJ) (19 March 2024) Van Schalkwyk v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (24910/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 300; [2024] 6 BLLR 640 (GJ) (19 March 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_300.html sino date 19 March 2024 FLYNOTES: PROFESSION – Magistrate – Misconduct – Review proceedings to set aside decisions that recommended applicant’s removal – No merit in contention that charges were brought for ulterior purpose – Disingenuous of applicant to interpret Act and its Regulations to mean that investigators should only investigate what they have been tasked to investigate – Several charges reviewed and set aside – Remaining four charges of misconduct warrant removal of applicant from magistracy – Sufficiently serious to have potential to undermine administration of justice and rule of law – Magistrates Act 90 of 1993 , s 13 and reg 26. REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Case Number: 24910/2021 1. REPORTABLE: No 2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No 3. REVISED: YES In the matter between: JUDITH FREDA VAN SCHALKWYK APPLICANT and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT FIRST RESPONDENT THE MAGISTRATE COMMISSION SECOND RESPONDENT ANAND MAHARAJ N.O THIRD RESPONDENT PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA FOURTH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT TWALA J [1] For the sake of convenience I propose to refer to the parties herein as they were referred to in the main application. Furthermore, this Court directed that this matter be determined on the papers without an oral hearing, as provided for in the Gauteng Division Consolidated Directives; re Court Operations during the National State of Disaster issued by the Judge President of this Division on the 18 th of September 2020. [2]  The applicant brought this application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order of this Court handed down electronically on 19 March 2024. The application is opposed by the first to the third respondent. [3]  At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude to both counsels for the applicant and the respondents for the concise heads of argument and submissions made therein which have been more than helpful in determining the issues in this application. [4]  It is a trite principle of our law that leave to appeal may only be given where the Judge or Judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or where there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration. [1] [5]  The grounds for the leave to appeal are succinctly stated in the notice of application for leave to appeal and I do not intend to repeat them in this judgment. [6]  I am satisfied that I have covered and considered all the issues raised in the application for leave to appeal in my judgment. I am therefore not persuaded by the applicant that there are reasonable prospects of success in this appeal. Put differently, I am of the view that there is no prospect that another Court would come to a different conclusion in this case. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal the judgment falls to be dismissed. TWALA M L JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT, SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION Date of Hearing: Written submissions filed 10 May 2024 Date of Judgment: 16 May 2024 Appearances For the Applicant: Advocate Feroze Boda SC Advocate Suhail Mohammed Instructed by:                          Dockrat inc. Attorneys Tel: 011 618 2247 Email: yusuf@dockrat.co.za For the First,second And third Respondents: Advocate Timothy Bruinders SC Advocate Nadia Badat Instructed by:                          The State Attorney Tel: 011 330 7787 Email: Charles.thamaga@gmail.com mmthamaga@justice.gov.za For the Fourth Respondent:   Advocate Lizzie Baloyi-Mere SC Instructed by:                          The State Attorney Tel: 021 441 9277 Email: nhendricks2@justice.gov.za alschreuder@justice.gov.za This judgment and order was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. The date of the order is deemed to be the 16 May 2024. [1] See section 17 (1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013 sino noindex make_database footer start