Summary: Interpretation of statutes – Applicant seeks declaratory orders that section 47(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 does not apply to retired Judges and that the term ‘civil proceedings’ does not relate to review applications instituted against regulatory bodies such as the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) but not against Judges even if they have an interest in the matter – alternative relief is for consent to be granted in terms of the section to cite a retired Judge – meaning and purpose of section 47(1) restated – doctrine of leave to sue applies with equal force to retired Judges –- case by case approach required when consent requested –- Retired judges continue to feature in judicial functions and activities - the safety net of section 47(1) is largely aimed at protecting judicial independence – test is whether good cause has been shown.
Note: Search is limited to the most recent 250 articles. To access earlier articles, click Advanced Search and set an earlier date range.
To search for a term containing the '&' symbol, click Advanced Search and use the 'search headings' and/or 'in first paragraph' options.
Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  On 17 March 2017, this Court issued an order in which Freedom Under Law (FUL) was permitted to intervene in an application brought by Black Sash Trust. FUL became the second applicant in that matter while Black Sash Trust was the first applicant. The Minister of Social Development, the Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency, the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA), the Minister of Finance, the National Treasury, Cash Paymaster Services (Pty) Ltd (CPS) and the Information Regulator were all cited as respondents. →