REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / MO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/ i ,
2 Y/orrzors
DATE SIGNATU
IN THE REVIEW APPLICATIONS OF:
ELIZABETH MOKGOSI R36/2025 Case no: 1/4/29-18//2025
IVY STUURMAN R37/2025 Case no: 1/4/27-39//2025
PHUMLA STUURMAN R39/2025 Case no: 1/4/29-62//2025
LUXOLO TSHUWUZANU-_R40/2025 Case no: 1/4/29-63//2025
PUSELETSO THUBE R41/2025 Case no: 1/4/27-40//2025
SIBIYA MBONGISENI R42/2025 Case no: 1/4/29-61//2025
SIPHESIHLE ZOKHELA = R43/2025 Case no: 1/4/29-64//2025
BEN GUMBE R44/2025 Case no: 1/4/29-58//2025
SPECIAL REVIEW JUDGMENT
STRYDOM, J
Facts
[1] These matters come before the Court on special review in terms of section 22
of the Superior Courts Act." All the matters emanate from the Magistrate’s Court
and concern applications for protection orders brought under either the
Domestic Violence Act (“the DVA”)? or the Protection from Harassment Act (‘the
PHA’).° The Additional Magistrate for Westonaria, Mr. C van Heerden referred
these matters to the High Court as special reviews.
[2] The common denominator across the eight cases is that they were all presided
over by Ms. Mogaki, who was appointed as an Acting Magistrate for the period
27 January 2025 to 28 March 2025. However, she presided over all the cases
in question on 31 March 2025, a date after which her appointment terminated.
[3] Magistrate van Heerden has acknowledged the error and submitted the matters
for review on the basis that Ms. Mogaki’s actions on 31 March 2025 were taken
without legal authority and therefore irregular. He indicated that he allowed Ms.
Mogaki to fulfil her functions in court as he had rendered under the mistaken
impression that her appointment extended to the 31S of March 2025.
[4] Section 16 of the DVA* and section 17 of the PHA, respectively, provides this
Court with the power to review proceedings conducted in terms of these Acts.
[5] The facts of each matter are as follows:
a. R36/2025 (Case No 1/4/29-18//2025): On 10 January 2025 Ms. Mokgosi's
applied for a protection order. Her application under section 4(1) of the DVA
was returnable on 11 February 2025, without an interim order being made.
On 11 February 2025, applicant appeared but respondent was absent. The
matter was postponed to 31 March 2025 to serve the application on
respondent. On this date, owing to no proof of service being presented and
due to the absence of both parties, the matter was postponed again by Ms
Mogaki, to 5 May 2025.
110 of 2013.
2 116 of 1998.
od in respect of appeal and review contemplated in the Magistrates’ Court Act, 1944, and the
Superior Courts Act, 2013, (Act no. 10 of 2013), apply to any proceedings in terms of this Act.”
2
b. R37/2025 (Case No 1/4/27-39//2025): Mr. Mokgothu's application in terms
of section 2(1) of the PHA was on 13 February 2025 postponed to effect
service of the application on respondent. The respondent was called upon
to show cause on 5 March 2025 why the court should not issue a final
protection order against the respondent. On 5 March 2025 the complainant
‘and respondent were absent. The matter was postponed to 31 March 2025
for applicant to appear. On 31 March 2025, the applicant yet again failed to
appear, and Ms Mogaki dismissed the application
c. R39/2025 (Case No 1/4/29-62//2025): On 13 February 2025, Mr. Mokgothu
made another application, this time in terms of section 4(1) of the DVA. An
interim order was not issued and the application was postponed with the
return date of 5 March 2025, calling on respondent to give reasons why a
final protection order should not be made. Service on respondent was
ordered. On the return date applicant was absent and the matter was
postponed to 31 March 2025 for the applicant to appear. On 31 March 2025,
Ms Mogaki dismissed the application due to the absence of the applicant.
d. R40/2025 (Case No 1/4/29-63//2025): On 14 February 2025 Ms Getrude
applied for a protection order in terms of section 4(1) of the DVA. An interim
protection order was granted by a magistrate calling upon respondent to
appear on 5 March 2025 providing reasons why a final protection order
should not be made. SerVice on respondent was ordered. On 5 March 2025
Ms. Getrude's application was postponed to 31 March 2025 for service on
the respondent who was absent. On 31 March 2025, Ms Mogaki postponed
the matter again to 5 May 2025 due to the lack of a return of service and
both parties being absent. .
e. R41/2025 (Case No 1/4/27-40//2025): Mr. Masentle's applied for a
protection order on 13 February 2025, in terms of section 2(1) of the PHA.
No interim order was granted and the matter was postponed to 5 March
2025 for the respondent to show cause why a final order should not be
made. On 5 March 2025 the parties were present, but applicant requested
an opportunity to apply for Legal Aid. The matter was postponed to
|