CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

The President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others (Recusal Application)

CitationCCT 16/98 (Judgment delivered 4 June 1999)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Constitutional Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Administrative Law
Judicial Ethics and Procedure

Facts of the Case

The President, the Minister of Sport and Tourism, and the Director-General of the Department of Sport and Recreation (the appellants) appealed against a High Court decision that had set aside the President's decision to appoint a commission of inquiry into SARFU. Dr Louis Luyt, the fourth respondent, shortly before the appeal hearing launched an unprecedented recusal application against five members of the Constitutional Court (Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Kriegler J, Sachs J, and Yacoob J), alleging all ten members were biased. The application was lodged on 29 April 1999, days before the hearing scheduled for 4 May 1999. The allegations included: political appointments by the President; prior associations with the ANC; personal relationships with President Mandela; the Court's expedited hearing schedule; and various interlocutory rulings allegedly favouring the President. Dr Luyt sent interrogatories to the judges demanding disclosure of political affiliations, social contacts, and other matters. Chaskalson P responded that such interrogatories were improper and that judges should only clarify specific relevant facts. The judges provided a statement correcting factual inaccuracies and confirming some public record matters about their prior ANC associations, which had all ceased upon appointment to the bench.

Legal Issues

  • Whether a recusal application is a constitutional matter within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court
  • What is the appropriate test for judicial bias and recusal in South African law
  • Whether prior political associations or activities of judges constitute grounds for recusal
  • What are the duties of judges to sit when not disqualified and to recuse themselves when there are reasonable grounds for apprehension of bias
  • Whether the method of judicial appointment by the President creates an apprehension of bias in cases involving the President
  • What facts must judges disclose in response to recusal applications
  • What is the appropriate procedure for recusal applications involving multiple members of the highest court

Judicial Outcome

The application for recusal was dismissed unanimously. All five judges whose recusal was specifically sought (and the five others implicitly challenged) declined to recuse themselves with the concurrence of the entire Court. The wasted costs of the recusal application were reserved for determination with the appeal on the merits. The appeal proceeded to be heard by all ten available members of the Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Recusal applications constitute constitutional matters under section 167(3) as they implicate the constitutional rights to a fair trial and impartial adjudication under sections 34 and 35(3). (2) The test for recusal is objective: whether a reasonable, objective and informed person would, on the correct facts and having thought the matter through, reasonably apprehend that the judicial officer will not bring an impartial mind to bear on the adjudication. (3) There is a presumption of judicial impartiality based on the judicial oath and training, which can only be displaced by cogent evidence. (4) Prior political associations or activities of judges do not constitute grounds for recusal unless the subject matter of the litigation arises directly from such associations or activities. (5) The method of judicial appointment through constitutional processes involving multiple actors does not create an apprehension that judges are personally beholden to the appointing President. (6) Professional advocate-client relationships that ended decades before appointment, and formal social contacts, do not establish personal relationships grounding bias. (7) Judges have an equal duty to sit when not disqualified as to recuse themselves when disqualified, particularly on courts of final jurisdiction with constitutional quorum requirements. (8) The Constitutional Court must give collective consideration to recusal applications as an incorrect refusal to recuse would fatally contaminate the ultimate decision.

Obiter Dicta

The Court made several important non-binding observations: (1) It deplored the public denigration of De Villiers J following his judgment, stating that political discontent with judgments does not justify attacking judicial integrity. (2) It noted that absolute judicial neutrality is impossible and that judges properly bring their life experiences to adjudication, stating it would be ironic if those who opposed apartheid were ineligible for appointment. (3) It observed that in a multicultural society, judicial officers cannot be expected to share all views and prejudices of those appearing before them, and a judge's race does not disqualify them from hearing cases involving parties of different races. (4) It commented that the procedure of sending interrogatories to judges was unprecedented and inappropriate, departing radically from accepted practice. (5) It noted that unjustified attacks on individual judges during the present period of institution-building are especially deplorable as they undermine the judiciary's role as defender of the Constitution. (6) It suggested (without deciding) that a vacancy caused by recusal might not constitute a "vacancy" enabling appointment of an acting judge under section 175(1). (7) It observed that success or failure of government or any litigant is neither grounds for praise nor condemnation of a court; what matters is whether decisions are good in law and justifiable in relation to reasons given.

Legal Significance

This is a landmark judgment establishing the test and principles for judicial recusal in post-apartheid South Africa. It affirmed that the objective test for reasonable apprehension of bias applies, consistent with Commonwealth jurisprudence. The judgment significantly clarified that prior political associations and opposition to apartheid do not disqualify judges from hearing cases with political dimensions, which is crucial for a transformed judiciary in a new democracy. It established that recusal applications are constitutional matters within the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction. The decision reinforced judicial independence by rejecting the notion that judges appointed through constitutional processes are beholden to the President. It set important precedents on: the duty of judges to sit unless genuinely disqualified; the impropriety of interrogatories demanding disclosure of irrelevant matters; the distinction between formal/professional contacts and personal relationships; and the high threshold for recusal in constitutional courts with limited ability to substitute judges. The judgment also condemned unjustified attacks on judicial officers and emphasized that political disagreement with judgments does not justify impugning judicial integrity. This case remains the leading authority on judicial bias and recusal in South Africa.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 6 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cited By 56 Cases

  • African National Congress v Chief Electoral Officer of the Independent Electoral Commission(CCT 45/09) [2009] ZACC 13
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that every matter before the Constitutional Court must be heard by at least eight judges.

  • Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others(CCT 54/09) [2010] ZACC 4
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the exercise of all public power must comply with the Constitution, supremacy of the Constitution and the doctrine of legality,…

  • AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others; Minister of Police v AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Others[2021] ZACC 3
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that judges are presumed impartial.

  • Association of Regional Magistrates of Southern Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa(CCT 91/12) [2013] ZACC 13
    Applies

    Applied to explain that determining whether conduct constitutes administrative action must be done on a case-by-case basis focusing on the nature of the power…

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

  • Bapedi Marota Mamone v Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims and Others[2014] ZACC 36
    Cites

    Cited in support of the principle that litigants must stand or fall by the case made in founding papers

  • Bernert v Absa Bank Ltd(CCT 37/10) [2010] ZACC 28
    Applies

    Applied to discuss the appropriate level of deference to trial court credibility findings and the dangers of relying on demeanour alone.

  • Camps Bay Ratepayers' and Residents' Association and Another v Gerda Yvonne Ada Harrison and Another(CCT 18/10) [2010] ZACC 19
    Cites

    Court cites this judgment for the principle that the recommendation of the building control officer is a jurisdictional fact.

  • Chirwa v Transnet Limited and Others(CCT 78/06) [2007] ZACC 23
    Applies

    Applied for the test of what constitutes administrative action: determining whether the task itself is administrative, focusing on the nature and source of the…

  • Crawford Lindsay Von Abo v President of the Republic of South Africa(CCT 67/08) [2009] ZACC 15
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the words 'fulfil a constitutional obligation' must be given a narrow meaning to avoid conflict with the power given to lower…

  • David Papiki Komane v The State(51/2019) [2022] ZASCA 55 (20 April 2022)
    Cites

    Cited to support the principle that the right to remain silent is a conscious choice.

  • Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others(CCT 122/11) [2012] ZACC 24
    Follows

    Applied in determining that the requirement of 'public concern' for commissions is an objective one, analogously used to establish that fitness and propriety…

  • Dengetenge Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sphere Mining and Development Company Ltd and Others(CCT 39/13) [2013] ZACC 48
    Applies

    Cited for the test for bias or appearance of bias in judicial decision-making, namely whether a reasonable, objective and informed person would apprehend that…

  • Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others2006 (6) SA 416 (CC); 2006 (12) BCLR 1399 (CC)
    Follows

    Followed for the proposition that the phrase 'constitutional obligation' in section 167(4)(e) should be given a narrow meaning to avoid conflict with section…

  • Duwayne Esau and Others v Minister of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Others(611/2020) [2021] ZASCA 9 (28 January 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the exercise of executive authority is a collaborative venture between the President and the Cabinet.

  • Frederick Coenrad Daniel v President of the Republic of South Africa(CCT 34/13) [2013] ZACC 24
    Applies

    Court applies this case to confirm that a High Court has jurisdiction to pronounce on the President's decision to appoint a Commission of Inquiry and, by…

  • Glofinco v Absa Bank Limited t/a United BankCase number: 135/2001
    Cites

    Cited by Nugent JA for the principle that courts should be reluctant to make findings of dishonesty when such imputations were never put directly to the…

  • Head of Department, Department of Education, Free State Province v Welkom High School and Others[2013] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the principle of legality is enshrined in our law.

  • Head of Department: Mpumalanga Department of Education and Another v Hoërskool Ermelo and Another(CCT 40/09) [2009] ZACC 32
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the exercise of public power is subject to constitutional control and the rule of law.

  • Islamic Unity Convention v Minister of Telecommunications and Others(CCT 33/07) [2007] ZACC 26
    Applies

    Court applies the test for bias: whether a reasonable, objective and informed person would reasonably apprehend that the Judge has not or will not bring an…

  • Jacobus Bogaards v The State(CCT 120/11) [2012] ZACC 23
    Cites

    Cited to explain that the Bill of Rights applies to the common law.

  • Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others(CCT 43/09) [2009] ZACC 30
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that procedural fairness is context-dependent.

  • Kabelo Betlane v Shelly Court CC(CCT 14/10) [2010] ZACC 23
    Cites

    Cited at para 150 for the principle that a case must be made out in the notice of motion and founding affidavit, not the replying affidavit.

  • Law Society of South Africa and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others[2018] ZACC 51
    Applies

    Applied to establish that the President's exercise of powers must not infringe the Bill of Rights and is constrained by legality, requiring the President to…

  • Lindiwe Mazibuko, MP v Max Vuyisile Sisulu, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly)(CCT 115/12) [2013] ZACC 28
    Cites

    Cited for the principle concerning the Court's exclusive jurisdiction and procedures related to such jurisdiction.

  • Lufuno Mphaphuli & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Andrews and Another; Lufuno Mphaphuli & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Bopanang Construction CC(CCT 97/07) [2009] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that nothing is more likely to impair confidence in proceedings than actual or apparent bias.

  • Maritz v The State(81/2023) [2024] ZASCA 72 (8 May 2024)
    Applies

    Applied to establish the test for reasonable apprehension of bias, namely whether a reasonable, objective and informed person would apprehend that the judicial…

  • Mbana v Shepstone & Wylie[2015] ZACC 11
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that where a dispute of fact is not material to the determination of an issue, it would not be in the interests of justice to remit the…

  • Mdodana v Premier of the Eastern Cape and Others(CCT 85/13) [2014] ZACC 7
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that section 172(2) reflects the purpose of preserving separation of powers by requiring this Court's supervisory role over…

  • Member of the Executive Council for Education in Gauteng Province and Others v Governing Body of the Rivonia Primary School and Others[2013] ZACC 34
    Cites

    Cited for the test of when a legitimate expectation to be heard exists, which is when the duty to act fairly requires a hearing in that case.

  • Michael Weare and Another v Mr Joel Sibusisio Ndebele NO and Others(CCT 15/08) [2008] ZACC 20
    Applies

    The Court applies SARFU's reasoning regarding the purpose of section 172(2) being to preserve comity by ensuring that only the Constitutional Court intrudes…

  • Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Motau and Others[2014] ZACC 18
    Applies

    Applied to explain the principle of legality applicable to executive action and the distinction between administrative and executive action

  • Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment & Others v Badenhorst N.O. & Others(1004/2023) [2025] ZASCA 68 (28 May 2025)
    Cites

    Cited to illustrate that what constitutes a 'fair' procedure in administrative action will depend on the nature of the administrative action and circumstances…

  • Minister of Health and Professor D McIntyre NO v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd and OthersCCT 59/04; 2005 (2) SA 530 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for test for determining whether conduct constitutes administrative action and for constitutional controls of public administration

  • Minister of Police and Others v Premier of the Western Cape and Others(CCT 13/13) [2013] ZACC 33
    Applies

    The court applies this case to explain the original power of the President (and by analogy the Premier) to appoint commissions of inquiry under section…

  • National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries(CCT 120/12) [2013] ZACC 26
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that there may be circumstances in which the performance of administrative functions by judicial officers infringes the doctrine of…

  • National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others[2021] ZACC 47
    Cites

    Cited for the principle relating to jurisdictional facts – that certain conditions must be met before a power may be exercised.

  • Oppelt v Head: Health, Department of Health Provincial Administration: Western Cape[2015] ZACC 33
    Applies

    Cited to support the importance of giving a witness an opportunity to rebut a negative inference or imputation explicitly.

  • Peermont Global (North West) (Pty) Limited v Chairperson of the North West Gambling Review Tribunal and Others; Galaxy Bingo Moruleng (Pty) Ltd and Another v North West Gambling Board and Others; Galaxy Bingo Moruleng (Pty) Ltd v North West Gambling Board and Others(1040/2020) [2022] ZASCA 80
    Applies

    The test for bias applied from this case is that a reasonable, objective and informed person would on the correct facts reasonably apprehend that the…

  • President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Quagliani and Others; Goodwin v Director-General, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others(CCT 24/08) [2009] ZACC 1
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that when acting as Head of State, the President may consult with ministers but must take the final decision.

  • Ramabele v The State; Msimango v The State[2020] ZACC 22
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that an application for recusal raised a constitutional matter and for the test to determine whether a judicial officer should be…

  • Ruby Charmaine Marais v The State(CCT 54/10) [2010] ZACC 16
    Considers

    The Court considers the rule from SARFU that if a point in dispute is left unchallenged in cross-examination, the party calling the witness is entitled to…

  • Singh v The Body Corporate of St Tropez(386/2023) [2024] ZASCA 142 (21 October 2024)
    Cites

    Cited via Bernert for the reasonable apprehension of bias test.

  • Smit v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others[2020] ZACC 29
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that judicial officers may perform administrative tasks but there may be circumstances where this infringes the doctrine of separation…

  • South African Human Rights Commission on behalf of South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Masuku and Another[2022] ZACC 5
    Applies

    Applied for the principles on recusal and the reasonable apprehension of bias test, including the presumption of impartiality and the objective standard…

  • South African Veterinary Association v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others[2018] ZACC 49
    Follows

    Cited for principles regarding the Constitutional Court's exclusive jurisdiction and the purpose of preserving comity between the judicial and legislative…

  • The Business Zone 1010 CC t/a Emmarentia Convenience Centre v Engen Petroleum Limited and Others[2017] ZACC 2
    Applies

    Court applied the principle from SARFU that regard must be had to the facts of each case to determine whether administrative action has been taken.

  • The IPA Foundation (NPC) v South African Pharmacy Council(1024/2023) [2025] ZASCA 148
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that fairness must be determined in light of the specific circumstances of each particular case.

  • The Member of the Executive Council for Health, Limpopo Provincial Government v L W Mokgotho obo D Mokgotho(502/2021) [2022] ZASCA 146 (27 October 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a scientific or medical publication merely handed up without comment by a witness has no evidential value; it must be properly…

  • The President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Gauteng Lions Rugby Union and OthersCCT 16/98 (decided on 22 November 2001)
    Related To

    Judgment dismissing the recusal application, with costs reserved for consideration in the main appeal judgment.

  • The President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v United Democratic MovementCase CCT 23/02 (Decided 4 October 2002)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle accepted in SARFU that exclusive jurisdiction provisions serve to preserve comity between the judicial branch and the legislative…

  • Transnet Limited v Goodman Brothers (Pty) Ltd(373/98) [2000] ZASCA 101 (9 November 2000)
    Applies

    Court applies the test that in determining whether an act is administrative the emphasis should be on the function rather than the functionary and the nature…

  • Turnbull-Jackson v Hibiscus Coast Municipality and Others(CCT 104/13) [2014] ZACC 24
    Applies

    Applied for the test for reasonable suspicion of bias tested against the perception of a reasonable, objective and informed person.

  • Urmilla Roshnee Devi Mansingh v General Council of the Bar(CCT 43/13) [2013] ZACC 40
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the President may act upon the advice of Cabinet and advisers when acting as Head of State.

  • Viking Pony Africa Pumps (Pty) Ltd t/a Tricom Africa v Hidro-Tech Systems (Pty) Ltd and City of Cape Town(CCT 34/10) [2010] ZACC 21
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that whether administrative action has been taken cannot be determined in the abstract but must have regard to the facts of each case.

  • Women's Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others(CCT 13/09) [2009] ZACC 20
    Cites

    The Court cited this case for the principle that the phrase 'failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation' in section 167(4)(e) must be given a narrow meaning,…

  • Wycliffe Simiyu Koyabe and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Others(CCT 53/08) [2009] ZACC 23
    Cites

    Cited to support that what constitutes a fair procedure will depend on the nature of the administrative action and circumstances of the particular case.

  • Explore More Cases

    More Constitutional Law cases

    • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
    • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The StateSC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    • Aaron Musiteyi v The StateHMT 2-21, B 09/21
    • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
    • AB and Another v Minister of Social Development[2016] ZACC 43
    • AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others[2020] ZACC 12

    More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
    2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97