Primary briefing · Gazette
medium impact 54464 · 7352 · 2026-04-08
Johannesburg Magistrates' Court Boundaries Redrawn — Immediate Effect
Effective from
08 Apr 2026
Government Notice 7352 of 8 April 2026, issued under section 2(1)(l) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944, varies Notice No. 5720 (published 20 December 2024) by substituting the point-to-point boundary descriptions for the Johannesburg Main Seat and the sub-districts of Lenasia, Randburg, Roodepoort and Soweto within the City of Johannesburg Magisterial District. The new boundaries reference roads, freeways, rivers, suburb boundaries and municipal boundaries as applicable on 21 July 2025. The practical effect is to redefine the territorial jurisdiction of these five magistrates' courts with immediate effect from publication, with no transition period.
Who is affected
Litigation attorneys issuing process in Johannesburg magistrates' courtsDebt collection and credit firms serving summons in the Johannesburg magisterial districtConveyancers and property practitioners in affected sub-districtsMunicipal and government entities in the City of Johannesburg What this means for practitioners
Verify that all new matters are issued in the correct magistrates' court by checking the revised boundary descriptions in GN 7352 against the physical address of the cause of action or defendant
Update internal court-selection tools and jurisdiction look-up tables to reflect the substituted boundaries for Johannesburg Main Seat, Lenasia, Randburg, Roodepoort and Soweto
Review any matters recently issued but not yet served to confirm they were filed in the court with jurisdiction under the new boundaries
Primary briefing · Judgment
high impact Constitutional Court · 2026-04-08
Systems Applications Consultants (Pty) Ltd t/a Securinfo v SAP SE and Another
During a 74-day trial in the High Court, the presiding judge left a virtual hearing for approximately two-and-a-half minutes without adjourning proceedings, apparently out of frustration with conduct by SAP's counsel. SAP subsequently raised an apprehension of bias. The SCA upheld the recusal ground and declared the entire trial a nullity. Securinfo appealed to the Constitutional Court.
The court held: The Constitutional Court unanimously held that the judge's conduct, while irregular, did not dislodge the presumption of judicial impartiality. The walkout was attributable to frustration, not partiality. The Court set aside the SCA's order declaring the trial a nullity and remitted the merits appeal to the SCA for adjudication. SAP was ordered to pay Securinfo's costs in the SCA recusal appeal, including costs of two counsel.
Legal impact: The judgment develops recusal jurisprudence in three respects. First, it clarifies that all relevant circumstances — including the judge's overall conduct during the trial and the merits judgment itself — may be considered when assessing apprehension of bias, not only the founding papers of the recusal application. Second, it qualifies this by holding that post-incident evidence should carry less weight than the impugned incident. Third, it reaffirms that not all irregular judicial conduct amounts to bias and that the presumption of impartiality is resilient. Practitioners opposing recusal applications now have clear authority to place the full trial record before the court, while those bringing such applications must show something beyond mere irregularity.
Who is affected
Litigation attorneys and advocates across all practice areasCommercial litigants in complex or lengthy trialsIn-house counsel managing high-stakes disputesJudicial officers and courts administration What this means for practitioners
When opposing a recusal application, consider placing the full trial record — including the merits judgment and the judge's overall conduct — before the appellate court as admissible evidence
When bringing a recusal application, ensure the founding papers demonstrate more than irregular conduct; articulate a nexus between the impugned conduct and actual partiality
Update litigation risk assessments: a single procedural irregularity by a presiding officer is unlikely to ground recusal absent evidence of partiality