Judge Ndita Reprimanded: RAF Judgment Delay Breached Judicial Code

• Western Cape High Court Judge Thandazwa Ndita was formally reprimanded by the Judicial Conduct Committee for a 14-month delay in delivering a judgment for an urgent Road Accident Fund application.
• Deputy Chief Justice Dunstan Mlambo ruled the delay constituted a "grossly negligent breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct" and directed Judge Ndita to issue a written apology to complainant Kabelo Malao.
• Attorney Kabelo Malao initiated the complaint, alleging significant prejudice to his firm and clients due to the judgment delay, for which Judge Ndita provided no explanation despite multiple opportunities.
• Judge Ndita's delayed judgment ultimately dismissed the urgent application, finding it lacked urgency and jurisdiction, and ordered Malao's firm to pay the RAF's costs.
• Malao expressed "profound dissatisfaction" with the sanction, deeming it "grossly inappropriate" and calling for a review and potential suspension to ensure judicial accountability.

Mlambo explicitly stated that the prolonged delay in judgment delivery constituted a "grossly negligent breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct and conduct unbecoming of a judge," as defined under a specific section of the Judicial Service Commission Act.

Western Cape High Court Judge Thandazwa Ndita has received a formal reprimand from the Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) following an extensive delay in delivering a judgment. The reprimand stems from an urgent application involving the Road Accident Fund (RAF), where Judge Ndita withheld judgment for over 14 months.

Deputy Chief Justice Dunstan Mlambo, in a ruling issued on Tuesday, directed Judge Ndita to provide a written apology to the complainant, attorney Kabelo Malao, within 30 days of receiving the directive. Mlambo explicitly stated that the prolonged delay in judgment delivery constituted a "grossly negligent breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct and conduct unbecoming of a judge," as defined under a specific section of the Judicial Service Commission Act.

The urgent application was initially filed in the Western Cape High Court in September 2023 by attorney Kabelo Malao, along with his firm K Malao Inc and other claimants listed in the founding papers, against the Road Accident Fund. The RAF was the sole party opposing the application. The judgment, which was the subject of the complaint, was eventually delivered electronically on December 11, 2024.

Malao’s complaint to the JCC primarily focused on the inordinate delay and the complete lack of communication from Judge Ndita after the matter was heard. He alleged that the delay caused significant prejudice, including a delay in justice, damage to his firm's reputation, financial harm, operational disruptions, and the loss of opportunities to take timely further legal steps. Malao had emphasized the extreme urgency of the matter, stating that his firm faced potential closure if payment from the RAF was not secured, and that he needed an urgent outcome to plan subsequent actions if the application proved unsuccessful. The only explanation provided for the delay was an email from Judge Ndita's secretary, conveying the judge's "profuse and unreserved" apologies for the protracted wait.

Judge Ndita was afforded multiple opportunities to respond to the allegations of misconduct. A letter dated December 1, 2025, invited her to submit her representations by December 15, 2025. Subsequently, a reminder issued on April 1, 2026, noted that no submissions had been received and granted a final extension until April 14, 2026, explicitly stating that if no response was provided, the committee would proceed with a decision based on the available record.

Despite these opportunities, Judge Ndita did not file any submissions. Deputy Chief Justice Mlambo highlighted this absence, noting that there was no explanation from the judge for the period spanning from the urgent application's hearing in September 2023 to the judgment's delivery in December 2024. Ultimately, Judge Ndita's delayed judgment dismissed the urgent application, concluding that it lacked urgency and jurisdiction, and was also res judicata, meaning it had already been decided. The judgment further ordered Malao and K Malao Inc to bear the RAF’s legal costs. Mlambo clarified that any issues pertaining to an appeal of this judgment were separate and not relevant to the misconduct proceedings.

Following the ruling, attorney Kabelo Malao expressed profound dissatisfaction with both the outcome and the sanction imposed on Judge Ndita. In a letter sent to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on Tuesday, which is reportedly in Moneyweb's possession, Malao contended that the sanction was "grossly inappropriate and inconsistent with the findings, inconsistent with previous rulings, and inconsistent with the seriousness of the misconduct." He argued that the ruling undermined the JSC's reputation, suggesting that even judicial defiance resulted in a mere "slap on the wrist."

Malao has called upon the JSC to review the sanction and consider imposing a suspension, asserting that such a measure would demonstrate the commission's commitment to taking judicial misconduct seriously and upholding the principle that no judge is above the law or the Code of Judicial Conduct. The JSC has been approached for comment regarding Malao's concerns, but as of now, no response has been received.

This case highlights the formal process for addressing judicial misconduct, specifically regarding inordinate judgment delays, and the potential for legal practitioners to lodge complaints. It also underscores the ongoing debate about the adequacy of sanctions for judicial accountability and the severe prejudice such delays can cause to legal firms and their clients.

Source: Original reporting via Moneyweb