REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
Case No: A2024/070314
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE j
REPORTABLE: NO |
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED
27.01.2025
DATE SIGNATURE
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
ZELDA STEENKAMP APPELLANT
AND
HEIN RUDOLPH LOUW RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
STIWENDU J
Introduction
{1] This is an appeal against the dismissal of an application for the recusal of
Magistrate, Mr T.G Netshiozwi (the Magistrate). The appellant launched the
application on 12 day of February 2024, after the Magistrate refused an
application to postpone the trial in an action instituted by the respondent against
the appellant.
[2] The appellant, Ms Zelda Steenkamp (Ms Steenkamp) is the defendant in
the main action. The respondent, Mr Louw (Mr Louw), who is a Regional
Magistrate based in Krugersdorp, is the plaintiff. Both Mr Louw and Ms
Steenkamp reside in Krugersdorp. Apart from serving as a Regional Magistrate,
Mr Louw is a member and a Trustee of several body corporates in Krugersdorp.
The appeal is unopposed.
[3] The main action and the genesis for the recusal application has a protracted
history. It was instituted by Mr Louw against Ms Steenkamp on 11 July 2019.
He alleged that Ms Steenkamp uttered and published defamatory statements
which injured his reputation as a well-known member of the community, a
trustees of body corporates and a regional magistrate. The offending statements
were allegedly made during 18 July 2017, March 2019, May 2019 and July 2019.
[4] Ms Steenkamp defended the action. She appointed Albasini Attorneys as
her attorneys on 9 November 2023. They instructed Adv Brandon Smith (Adv
Smith), to appear on the first day of the hearing and seek a postponement of the
trial. Mr Louw was represented by Mr Loock from the inception of the action.
[5] In support of the application for recusal, Ms Steenkamp attached an email
dated 27 October 2023 to the Chief Magistrate requesting a Magistrate from
outside the area to preside over the trial. In her email she explained her difficulty
in obtaining an attorney to represent her because attorneys “don’t want to take the
case as they say they appear in front of [Mr Louw] on a weekly basis”. She
advised the Chief Magistrate that if she did not find an attorney before the 21 of
November 2023, the attorney might not be available for the trial. She asked the
court to read the contents in conjunction with her founding affidavit.
[7] A Magistrate was called in from outside Krugersdorp to preside over the
trial at Ms Seenkamp’s request. At commencement of the trial on the 21
November 2023, Adv Smith requested a postponement of the trial. The
Magistrate dismissed the application for postponement. The expectation was for
the trial to commence but Adv Smith withdrew from the case, informing court his
mandate was limited to the application for postponement.
{8] It appears that “an incident” occurred in court when the Magistrate called
Ms Steenkamp to the witness stand after accepting the withdrawal of Counsel.
She fell or fainted after being sworn in. In the recusal application she takes issue
with the remarks by the Magistrate that he was “unsure” whether Ms Steenkamp
had a medical issue, “or it was an act.” The trial proceedings were adjourned to
14th to 16 February 2024, and Ms Steenkamp was ordered to consult with a
medical practitioner and provide “a comprehensive report” about her condition.
The Magistrate reserved the determination of costs.
[9] Instead on 12 February 2024, Ms Steenkamp launched an application for
the recusal application (the application) of the Magistrate to stop the resumption
of the proceedings on 14 February 2024. She claimed she endured bias based on
the remarks by the Magistrate after she fell or fainted. She says she had a
reasonable apprehension of bias in the future conduct of the trial. The Magistrate
dismissed the recusal application on 23 April 2024, pursuant to which Ms
Steenkamp approached this Court on appeal.
[10] Before addressing the merits of the appeal, it bears mentioning that the trial
has been held in abeyance pending this judgment, resulting in piecemeal litigation
which is generally eschewed by the courts. As the Supreme Court of Appeal held