Moorosi Tsiane
CHIEF Justice Sakoane Sakoane has hit back at retired Justice Tšeliso Monapathi, revealing that the latter failed to issue judgments dating as far back as 1995 – just a year after his appointment to the High Court bench.
Justice Sakoane accuses Justice Monapathi of spurning his efforts to assist him in clearing a massive backlog of pending judgments.
According to Justice Sakoane, Justice Monapathi – who joined the High Court bench in 1994 – failed to issue 128 judgments and left 11 part-heard cases unresolved between 1995 and August 2024, when he retired.
The Chief Justice made these claims in his answering affidavit filed this week, opposing Justice Monapathi’s Constitutional Court application seeking an order to compel him (Sakoane) to release his terminal benefits.
Justice Monapathi filed the constitutional application last week, accusing the Chief Justice of unlawfully withholding his pension benefits and subjecting him to what he terms “forced labour.”
During his lengthy tenure on the bench, Justice Monapathi was often criticised for not issuing full written judgments in the cases he presided over.
The Court of Appeal once chastised him for this failure, noting that it hampered its ability to adjudicate appeals. Nonetheless, Justice Monapathi maintains that his failure to deliver full written judgments in an astonishing 128 cases should not disqualify him from receiving his terminal benefits.
But Chief Justice Sakoane has pushed back, saying he made repeated efforts to help Justice Monapathi complete the outstanding work, but those efforts were ignored.
“Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment, I took a further step of writing a memo to all judges, directing them to deliver all outstanding judgments by 30 November 2023 and submit them to my chambers.
“He (Monapathi) did not respond to the memo, though he acknowledged receipt by signing it,” Justice Sakoane states.
“After the applicant failed to provide me with a full list of his reserved judgments, I instructed the Registrar to search for all his reserved judgments and part-heard cases. The Registrar obliged and submitted a list of 128 reserved judgments and 11 part-heard cases. That was the first time I became aware of the full extent of the backlog.
“I then wrote a letter directing the applicant (Monapathi) to provide two timetables: one of four months to deliver reserved judgments, and another of no more than six months to complete the part-heard cases. The applicant’s lawyer responded on 16 September 2024. By then, he had already packed his bags and left.”
Justice Sakoane had, on 26 July 2024, informed Justice Monapathi that his terminal benefits would only be processed once he had finalised the outstanding 128 judgments and 11 part-heard cases.
In response, Justice Monapathi’s lawyer, Advocate Rethabile Setlojoane, demanded that his client be provided with an office at the High Court, a computer, internet access, and support staff to enable him to complete the outstanding work.
The Registrar of the High Court, Advocate ’Mathato Sekoai, responded to Adv Setlojoane on 9 October 2024, assuring him of the availability of the requested facilities.
She followed up again on 25 March 2025, but according to Justice Sakoane, Justice Monapathi did not respond.
“The applicant’s failure to respond to my letters and those from the Registrar is evidence that he does not wish to cooperate with my efforts to assist him in fulfilling his obligation under section 121(1) of the Constitution, that is, to provide plans to complete his unfinished judicial business.
“The work plans and timetables are essential. Only if I have these in hand can I communicate suitable dates to litigants and their lawyers and put in place the necessary logistics to finalise the pending cases.”
He continues: “The applicant is mistaken in believing that the decision to continue in office rests solely with him. Continuing in office to complete unfinished business is a constitutional imperative. As long as he continues in office under section 121(2), he remains subject to my administrative authority, which ensures that justice is delivered within a reasonable time, as mandated by sections 12(1) and (8) of the Constitution, the Speedy Courts Trial Act 2002, the Rules of Court, and the Code of Ethics for Judges.
“The applicant is wrong to suggest that I cannot require a work plan or schedule from him to complete what he failed to finalise before retirement.
“Given his track record, binding him to a written timetable is the only reasonable and practical approach to ensure that he does not remain in office indefinitely without delivering judgments.”
The matter is scheduled to be heard on 11 August 2025.
