Bokoni Platinum Mines (Pty) Ltd v Abram Moropane

Bokoni Platinum Mines concluded agreements with subsistence farmers, including Abram Moropane, to compensate them for loss of mielie fields due to mining activities. Moropane was to receive R54 000 in three annual instalments, of which only the first was paid. Moropane sued for the balance. Bokoni denied the written agreement and raised alternative defences, including that Moropane did not farm mielies and was unjustly enriched. During protracted magistrates’ court proceedings, Bokoni sought to amend its plea and counterclaim to align with evidence admitting written agreements. The application to amend was dismissed by Magistrate Malebane. Bokoni later successfully applied for his recusal on grounds of bias, with an order that the trial start de novo. A subsequent, similar amendment application was dismissed by Acting Magistrate Moyane. On appeal, the High Court raised res judicata mero motu, holding that Malebane’s earlier refusal to amend survived his recusal and barred the later application. Bokoni appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. All proceedings before Magistrate Malebane, including the judgment refusing leave to amend, were set aside. The matter was remitted to a full court of the Limpopo Division of the High Court to adjudicate the merits of Acting Magistrate Moyane’s judgment on the amendment application. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

The case authoritatively confirms that in South African civil procedure, as in criminal and administrative law, a recusal based on bias renders the entire proceedings a nullity, including interlocutory orders. It clarifies that such judgments cannot found a defence of res judicata and underscores the constitutional centrality of judicial impartiality under section 34 of the Constitution.