Legal Ethics
Nomonde Zondi|Published 1 day ago
Following a year-long delay in delivering the reasons for a judgment, Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Elsje-Marie Bezuidenhout has been ordered by the Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) to apologise in writing to Abantu Batho Congress (ABC) President Philani Mavundla and former Umvoti Municipality speaker Mfundo Masondo within 30 days.
Deputy Chief Justice Dunstan Mlambo, in a ruling delivered earlier this week, found that Judge Bezuidenhout’s conduct amounted to a grossly negligent breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
“The written apology must be provided to the Secretariat for onward transmission to the complainants within 30 days of receipt of this ruling,” Mlambo ordered.
Mavundla, the former mayor of Umvoti Municipality, and Masondo were removed from office in a no-confidence vote orchestrated by an ANC-IFP coalition in May 2024.
On June 19, 2024, Judge Bezuidenhout presided over several urgent applications arising from the leadership dispute. Five days later, she discharged a rule nisi that had granted Mavundla and Masondo interim relief, indicating that her reasons would follow in due course.
Their legal representatives requested the reasons on July 2, 9, and 24, 2024, but were informed by the judge’s registrar that she was overseas and that the reasons would be furnished in due course.
The reasons were only delivered on June 19, 2025, by which time Mavundla and Masondo had already lodged complaints with the JCC in March 2025.
In addition to complaining about the delay, the pair alleged that Judge Bezuidenhout threatened their legal representatives, subjected them to undue verbal attacks during proceedings, and displayed bias against them.
In response, Judge Bezuidenhout denied the allegations, saying the applicants’ legal team had struggled to answer questions relevant to the matter.
Moreover, during leave-to-appeal proceedings, Bezuidenhout discovered that Mavundla’s legal team had cited fictitious case law — of nine authorities referenced, only two existed. She described the conduct as “irresponsible and downright unprofessional”.
After reviewing the court transcript, the JCC found that Judge Bezuidenhout had questioned counsel firmly and, at times, interrupted their arguments. However, it concluded that this did not establish bias, personal spite, or any ulterior motive.
“At most, it shows robust judicial engagement in urgent and contentious proceedings,” Mlambo said.
He explained that a judge may be firm during proceedings, ask difficult questions, and may require counsel to address perceived weaknesses in a case.
Mlambo also accepted that Judge Bezuidenhout had provided context for the delay, including the complexity of related proceedings and the fact that she had experienced significant health problems, undergone surgery, and required a period of recovery.
However, he found that the Code of Judicial Conduct required the delay to be managed proactively.
According to Mlambo, there was no indication that Judge Bezuidenhout informed the head of court that reasons remained outstanding, sought guidance or assistance, kept the parties informed of a realistic timeframe, or otherwise took documented steps to manage the delay.
“The matter was urgent. The reasons were reasonably required. A delay of that length in furnishing reasons for an urgent order is a serious matter,” Mlambo said.
Despite finding that Judge Bezuidenhout had breached the Code of Judicial Conduct, Mlambo stopped short of recommending that the matter be referred to a Judicial Conduct Tribunal, finding no evidence of bias, malice, or an intention to frustrate or defeat an appeal.