13 July 2026
A Judicial Service Commission committee has found a KwaZulu-Natal High Court judge grossly negligent for taking almost a year to provide reasons for a judgment. Illustration: Bronwyn Webb
KwaZulu-Natal high court Judge Elsje-Marie Bezuidenhout has been ordered by a Judicial Service Commission (JSC) conduct committee to apologise in writing to litigants after she took almost a year to hand down reasons for an order she granted in an urgent matter in June 2024.
The order, effectively, set aside an interim interdict granted by another judge in May that year.
Bezuidenhout, who was sitting in the Pietermaritzburg High Court, said “reasons would follow in due course”.
The litigants, Abantu Batho Congress President Philani Godfrey Mavundla, and Mfundo Masondo, who was formerly the speaker of the Umvoi municipality, were involved in a litigious leadership dispute with the party.
They complained, separately, to the JSC in March 2025 that the judge had still not given her reasons for discharging the interim interdict.
The reasons were ultimately handed down on 19 June 2025.
Their complaints were referred to a Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC), chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Dunstan Mlamabo, for investigation. In his recent ruling, he said there was no need to refer the matter to a tribunal (to consider impeachable conduct) because the delay was not intentional.
“But the respondent [Bezuidenhout] had a duty to furnish reasons within a reasonable timeframe. The code [of conduct for judges] required the delay to be actively and responsibility managed.
“I am satisfied that the delay constituted a grossly negligent breach of the code,” Mlambo said, ordering that she write the written apology within 30 days.
Video: GroundUp staff
In 2024, Bezuidenhout was presiding over several matters relating to the leadership dispute within the party.
In the case in question, Masondo claimed that the delay in furnishing reasons, had deprived him of a proper opportunity to pursue an appeal. He also alleged that Bezuidenhout had threatened his legal representatives and subjected them to undue verbal attacks during the proceedings.
Mavundla complained that the judge had displayed bias and had not followed proper court procedures.
In her response, Bezuidenhout denied displaying bias or not following court procedures.
With regards to the delay in handing down reasons, she said at the hearing she had explained that she would be travelling overseas for three weeks.
She had also been busy with other related applications during that time.
She had been affected by ill-health, eventually having surgery on her right shoulder and elbow in March 2025, resulting in her being off work until May that year.
When she received the JCC inquiry regarding the complaints in June 2025, the reasons had already been sent to the researchers for finalisation.
She said she regretted the delay but specifically denied the other allegations.
Mlambo said judges were not precluded from keeping a firm hand on proceedings.
“Judges may question counsel, test submissions, scrutinise applications for real merit and require legal representatives to address issues which concern the court. Robust judicial engagement is not misconduct merely because a party or legal representative experiences it as uncomfortable.”
Mlambo said the transcript of the hearings did not establish that the engagement “crossed the line”.
Issues relating to the correctness of Bezuidenhout’s rulings were also not for determination by the JCC but must be dealt with through legal litigation processes.
“I accept that the respondent [Bezuidenhout] has provided an explanation which gives context for the delay. The related proceedings were factually and procedurally difficult. She also experienced significant health difficulties and underwent surgery. Those matters are relevant and mitigating,” he said.
However, the reasons had been outstanding for almost a year and the record did not show adequate proactive management of that delay. The appropriate remedy was a written apology “which recognises the seriousness of the delay and the importance of prompt reasons”.
