19 December 2024
Eight months after publishing its last report, the Office of the Chief Justice has finally released the new list of reserved judgments. The High Court in Pretoria had the highest number of late judgments, with 59 matters outstanding for longer than six months. Archive photo: Ashraf Hendricks
Eight months after publishing its last report, the Office of the Chief Justice has finally published the list of reserved judgments. According to the latest list, 1,383 judgments were reserved from January to May at courts across South Africa. Of these, 239 judgments are late.
Since July, GroundUp has sent several requests to the OCJ for its latest lists. After repeated requests, the OCJ published two reports on 11 December, but only for terms 1 and 2.
According to judicial norms and standards, judgments in civil and criminal matters should generally not be reserved without a fixed date for delivery. Courts are allowed to reserve judgments after a hearing or trial, but are expected to hand them down within three months.
GroundUp uses a more lenient six-month benchmark for considering when a reserved judgment is in fact “late”. The OCJ has also applied the same timeframe in its reports.
The High Court in Pretoria had the highest number of late judgments, with 59 matters outstanding for longer than six months. This was 21 more late judgments than in term 1. This court has repeatedly had the highest number of judgments throughout the year.
The High Court in Pietermaritzburg followed with 19 late judgments, while the High Court in Durban and the Labour Court in Cape Town both had 17 late judgments.
The Constitutional Court has three late judgments on the OCJ’s list, but the court’s website lists at least six outstanding judgments, of which five are late.
We noted that some cases on the list were years old, while other cases where judgments have already been delivered are still on the list.
Consider the matter between the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) and life insurance company Lion of Africa over deductions from children’s grants. Judgment was delivered on 26 May 2016, yet, it is listed as awaiting judgment on the court’s website. The site also lists the case of Bonginkosi Khanyile v The State as reserved on 1 March 2017, but we understand that an order for this case has in fact been handed down.
There are 18 judgments listed as late for Judge Nomsa Khumalo of the Pretoria High Court. Judge Khumalo has previously had the highest number of late judgments.
Acting Judge Mlungisi Sabela of the Durban and Pietermaritzburg High Courts had 11 late judgments, while Acting Judge Okgabile Yvonne Dibetso-Bodibe of the North West High Court and Judge Cecile Williams of the High Court in Kimberley followed with seven late judgments each.
The High Court in Polokwane, the Competition Appeal Court and the Electoral Court had no late judgments listed during these periods. But the system of reporting reserved judgments is an honour one - judges are expected to report when they reserve a judgement - and so we cannot be certain there are no late judgments outstanding at these courts.
Previously the OCJ published lists on reserved judgments three or four times a year, typically at the end of each of the four court terms. But in recent years, the reports have been published irregularly.
Before Wednesday, the OCJ last published a reserved judgment report in April. But these were for judgments reserved for the beginning of term 4 of 2023.
Mbekezeli Benjamin, a researcher at Judges Matter, said these reports are crucial for holding the judiciary accountable. He said that some judges who had appeared frequently in the OCJ late judgment reports had eventually been taken to Judicial Conduct Tribunals.
“Without these reports,” he said, “it’s hard to assess the judiciary’s adherence to its own Norms and Standards for Court Performance and thus hold them to account.”
Benjamin said resource constraints cause delays in delivering judgments. “We know that the judiciary is under severe resource constraints, and the OCJ’s late judgment reports show us the impact of this lack of resources through the courts.”
He argued that it is in the judiciary’s interest to publish these reports regularly, not only for the sake of transparency but to demonstrate a commitment to addressing the challenges posed by resource shortages.
“Chief Justice Mogoeng and Chief Justice Zondo have respectively promised that the OCJ’s late judgments reports will be published online on a quarterly basis. This was done for a few years. We do not know why it is not being done for 2024,” he said.
We asked the OCJ for comment.
In response, Judge President Cagney Musi, spokesperson for the OCJ, said, “It is not standard practice to provide reasons for delays to individuals who are not litigants in the matter before the judgment is delivered. Typically, judges offer explanations for delays in their judgments, and in some cases, offer an apology to the litigants and other interested parties for such delays.”
“The Judges President concerned have been informed of your inquiry and will surely discuss it with the judges concerned. In the meantime, you are free to report on the factual circumstances of the situation, provided the details are accurately represented,” he said.
Last year, GroundUp launched a system to track late judgments. But it has proved challenging to keep track accurately of reserved and late judgments for two reasons: (1) the OCJ does not publish these reports timeously and (2) very few lawyers are informing us that judgment has been reserved in their matters. We have therefore decided to decommission this system in January.