Background to the Review Application: The Divorce Orders in Question
The recent Western Cape High Court judgment in G.W.X. v Magistrate of Regional Division of Western Cape Blue Downs Mashala N.O and Another (17268/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 142 (27 March 2025) addresses a concerning scenario where a magistrate unilaterally altered a final divorce order without any application being brought before the court.
The applicant and second respondent were married in community of property on 20 March 2004. Their marriage produced three children, two of whom were still minors at the time of proceedings. When the applicant instituted divorce proceedings in January 2021, she specifically requested that their joint estate be divided in a particular manner: she would retain the Brackenfell property (their matrimonial home situated near the children’s school), while the second respondent would keep the Ezakheni property in Pietermaritzburg. Additionally, each party would retain the vehicles in their possession and their respective pension interests.
Although the second respondent initially defended the divorce action and delivered a counterclaim regarding care and contact with the minor children, he made no specific requests regarding the division of their joint estate. When the matter was heard on 11 July 2022, the second respondent neither appeared personally nor was represented in court. Following the applicant’s viva voce evidence, the magistrate granted a decree of divorce with ancillary relief as requested in the applicant’s particulars of claim.
However, on 5 September 2022, without any application being brought by either party, the magistrate unilaterally amended the initial order. The revised order significantly altered the division of the joint estate by directing that both immovable properties (Brackenfell and Ezakheni) be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the parties. This amendment occurred without either party’s presence, knowledge, or consent, and without any formal application for variation or rescission of the original order.
What made matters more perplexing was that the second order was backdated to appear as if it had been granted on 11 July 2022, despite being stamped by the Regional Court Registrar on 5 September 2022. This discrepancy created confusion about when the order was actually granted and under what circumstances.
The applicant, upon learning about this substantial amendment to the original order and realising its significant prejudicial impact on her interests, sought legal advice and subsequently filed this review application. The application specifically targeted the orders made by the magistrate on 11 July 2022 and 5 September 2022, seeking to have them reviewed, corrected and/or set aside based on the magistrate’s lack of authority to amend a final order once it had become functus officio.
Magistrate’s Actions: When the Bench Exceeds its Authority
At the heart of this judgment lies a concerning example of judicial overreach. The first respondent, Magistrate Mashala of the Blue Downs Regional Court, fundamentally exceeded his authority when he altered the final divorce order of 11 July 2022 without any application before him. This action represents a serious departure from established legal process and raises important questions about the boundaries of judicial power.
The High Court’s judgment makes it abundantly clear that magistrates’ courts are “creatures of statute” with no jurisdiction beyond that provided in enabling legislation. This principle, recently affirmed in Vorster v Clothing City (Pty) Ltd (159/2023) [2024] ZASCA 53 (19 April 2024), underpins our entire judicial framework where courts at different levels have clearly defined powers and limitations.
What makes this case particularly troubling is the manner in which the magistrate proceeded to substitute his own views on how the joint estate should be divided, effectively inserting himself as an interested party in the divorce proceedings. Without any rescission application or variation request from either spouse, the magistrate took it upon himself to order both properties sold, and proceeds divided equally a remedy neither party had sought in their pleadings.
The second respondent’s opposing affidavit contained contradictory positions which only highlighted the irregular nature of the magistrate’s actions. In one instance claiming the court “erred in its order when it awarded an order that had not been prayed for by any of the parties,” while elsewhere suggesting the final divorce decree was only granted on 5 September 2022 a position at odds with the record reflecting the initial order of 11 July 2022.
The High Court identified this conduct as “grossly irregular” and referred to the principles established in Lovius Block Incorporated v BP Makae and Others (1279/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 230 (08 October 2021), where a similar situation arose. In that case, the court condemned a magistrate’s alteration of a court order in the absence of any application for such change, describing such conduct as not only irregular but potentially “bordering on unethical.”
The first respondent’s failure to provide any explanation for his actions is particularly striking. The judgment notes that he offered no justification for replacing the first order with subsequent orders made mero moto (of his own accord). This silence in the face of such a significant procedural irregularity further underscores the impropriety of his actions.
What emerged during proceedings was that the second respondent appeared content with the magistrate’s unauthorised amendment, as it allowed him to benefit from the sale of the Brackenfell property. According to his counsel, the parties had already sold this property and shared the proceeds before the application was launched suggesting the review was only brought because the Ezakheni property could not be sold. This opportunistic stance fails to address the fundamental legal problem: the magistrate had no authority to make the amendment in the first place.
The Functus Officio Principle: Why Judicial Officers Cannot Amend Final Orders
The Western Cape High Court’s ruling in this case hinges on a fundamental principle of South African law: once a court has pronounced a final judgment or order, it becomes functus officio – its jurisdiction in the matter has been fully exercised, and its authority over the subject matter ceases. This principle, clearly articulated in Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Gentiruco AG 1977 (4) SA 298 (A), forms the cornerstone of legal certainty and finality in litigation.
When Magistrate Mashala granted the initial divorce decree on 11 July 2022, this represented a final determination of the matter. The order addressed all aspects of the divorce, including the division of the joint estate in accordance with the applicant’s particulars of claim. By operation of law, once this order was pronounced, the magistrate’s jurisdiction over the matter ended immediately. Any subsequent attempt to “amend” or “replace” this order without a proper application before him constituted a fundamental breach of the functus officio principle.
The magistrate’s actions were particularly egregious as they occurred entirely outside the established legal mechanisms for altering court orders. South African law provides clear pathways for amending final orders: through formal applications for variation, rescission, or appeal. None of these procedures were followed in this case. Instead, the magistrate took it upon himself to substitute an entirely different order regarding property division without any legal basis for doing so.
The judgment refers to limited exceptions where courts may correct final orders shortly after delivery – but these are restricted to minor details that do not affect the substance or reasoning of the judgment. What occurred in this case went far beyond such minor corrections. The magistrate fundamentally altered the substantive rights of the parties by ordering both properties to be sold rather than allowing each party to retain their respective properties as initially ordered.
This case serves as an important reminder that judicial officers at all levels are bound by the same principles of finality. While the High Court acknowledged that special circumstances might warrant correction of patent errors in judgments, such corrections must be made within strict parameters and cannot alter the substantive rights determined in the original order. As noted in the Firestone case, this restriction exists to ensure certainty in judicial proceedings and to protect parties’ rights after a final determination has been made.
The court’s conclusion that both the 5 September 2022 order and the “inconsequential” 15 August 2022 order were “fatal” underscores the severity with which our legal system views breaches of the functus officio principle. These orders were not merely procedurally flawed they were fundamentally invalid from inception because they were made without jurisdiction. The magistrate, having already decided the matter on 11 July 2022, had no authority whatsoever to revisit his decision and substitute a different outcome.
The High Court’s decision reinforces that judicial officers must respect the boundaries of their authority and cannot simply revise their judgments when they have second thoughts about the outcome. The functus officio doctrine serves as a critical safeguard against precisely this type of judicial overreach, ensuring that parties can rely on the finality of court orders once pronounced.
Legality Review vs Administrative Review: Important Procedural Distinctions
A key procedural aspect of this case centered around the proper characterisation of the review application. The second respondent attempted to frame the matter as an administrative review governed by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA), which would have significant implications for the timing of the application. According to Section 7(1) of PAJA, review proceedings must be instituted “without unreasonable delay and no later than 180 days” after the relevant action or decision.
By invoking PAJA, the second respondent sought to have the application dismissed on the grounds that it was brought approximately two years after the divorce decree was issued well beyond the 180-day limitation period. The second respondent cited BJM v MAM (1423/2004) [2023] ZAGPPHC 20 (1 March 2023) to argue that the absence of a condonation application for the delay was “fatal” to the applicant’s case.
However, the High Court firmly rejected this characterisation, clarifying that the application was properly brought as a legality review under Section 22 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. This distinction is crucial, as Section 22 establishes specific grounds for reviewing magistrates’ court proceedings, including:
Absence of jurisdiction
Interest in the cause, bias, malice or corruption by the presiding officer
Gross irregularity in the proceedings
Admission of inadmissible evidence or rejection of admissible evidence
Unlike PAJA, Section 22 does not impose a specific time limitation for bringing review applications. While unreasonable delay can still be a factor in legality reviews, the statutory 180-day restriction does not apply. The court noted that the applicant had explained her delay as resulting from “bona fide ignorance of the law” she was simply unaware that such proceedings were possible until she consulted with an attorney who advised her accordingly.
The court’s clarification on this point has broader implications for understanding the different review mechanisms available in South African law. Judicial actions are generally not considered “administrative actions” subject to PAJA, but rather fall under the common law principles of legality review or specific statutory review provisions like Section 22 of the Superior Courts Act. This distinction preserves the separation between administrative and judicial functions in our constitutional framework.
In applying Ablansky v Bulman 1915 TPD 71, the court affirmed that a “gross irregularity” in civil proceedings in a magistrate’s court means an irregular act or omission by the presiding judicial officer that is prejudicial to the aggrieved litigant. The court determined that the magistrate’s unauthorised amendment of the final divorce order clearly constituted such an irregularity, causing substantial prejudice to the applicant who lost her right to retain the Brackenfell property as originally ordered.
The court’s handling of this procedural issue serves as an important reminder that practitioners must carefully consider the nature of the action being challenged when determining the appropriate review mechanism. Confusing administrative reviews under PAJA with legality reviews under Section 22 of the Superior Courts Act can lead to fatal procedural errors that may prevent valid claims from being properly adjudicated.
The Court’s Remedy: Appointment of a Receiver for Equitable Division
After setting aside the irregular orders issued by the magistrate, the Western Cape High Court faced the practical challenge of crafting an appropriate remedy. Since the Brackenfell property had already been sold and the proceeds divided between the parties (as acknowledged by the second respondent), the court could not simply reinstate the original order of 11 July 2022. The situation demanded a more comprehensive solution to address the consequences of the magistrate’s unauthorised actions.
The court determined this was “a typical case for substitution” and relied on the principles established in Trencon Construction v Industrial Development Corporation 2015 (5) SA 245, where the Constitutional Court outlined factors to consider when deciding whether substitution is justified. These include whether the court is in as good a position as the original decision-maker, whether the outcome is a foregone conclusion, and considerations of delay, bias or incompetence. The ultimate test is whether substitution would be just and equitable, considering fairness to all parties involved.
Rather than simply reinstating the original order or creating a new property division arrangement without sufficient information, the court crafted a solution that would ensure a thorough and fair division of the joint estate. Paragraph 31.2 of the judgment provides for the appointment of a Receiver by the chairperson of the Cape Bar, empowered with extensive authority to investigate and equitably divide the parties’ joint estate.
The Receiver’s powers are notably comprehensive, including:
Determining the full extent of the joint estate as at the date of divorce (11 July 2022).
Valuing all assets and liabilities, including any direct or indirect interests in entities.
Instituting proceedings to recover any assets of the joint estate.
Realising assets through public auction or private treaty as necessary for equal division.
Allocating and distributing assets, monies, debts and liabilities between parties.
Conducting specific investigations into retirement benefits and policies.
Signing documents and taking steps necessary to effect the division.
Applying to the High Court for further directions if needed.
Demanding payment or delivery of assets from either party.
Engaging qualified persons to assist with valuation and sale of assets.
Subpoenaing documentation to determine the value of the parties’ estates.
This approach demonstrates judicial pragmatism in addressing a complex situation where simply voiding the magistrate’s actions would not restore the parties to their original positions. By appointing an independent Receiver with wide-ranging powers, the court ensured that a proper investigation could be conducted to determine what constituted the joint estate at the date of divorce and how it should be equitably divided.
The judgment also included protective measures, prohibiting either party from disposing of or encumbering any assets pending the division of the joint estate, except for normal living requirements. The Receiver was required to prepare a detailed account showing the values placed on each asset and liability, the proposed distribution or liquidation of assets, and the method for effecting equal division.
The court’s decision to award costs against the second respondent on scale B reflects its view that the second respondent’s opposition to the review application was not bona fide, particularly given his inconsistent positions regarding the validity of the magistrate’s actions and his apparent satisfaction with the irregular order when it benefited him financially.
This comprehensive remedy demonstrates the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to craft appropriate solutions when lower courts exceed their authority. Rather than simply identifying the legal error, the judgment provides a practical pathway forward that acknowledges the changed circumstances while still addressing the underlying injustice caused by the magistrate’s improper amendment of the final divorce order.
Questions and Answers
What legal principle prevented the magistrate from amending the divorce order after it was granted on 11 July 2022? The principle of functus officio prevented the magistrate from amending the divorce order after it was granted. According to this principle, once a court has pronounced a final judgment or order, it has no authority to correct, alter or supplement it as its jurisdiction in the case has been fully exercised and its authority over the subject matter has ceased. This principle was affirmed in Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Gentiruco AG, which the court cited in its judgment.
Under which legislation did the applicant bring the review application? The applicant brought the review application under Section 22 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, which provides the grounds upon which proceedings of any magistrate’s court may be brought under review. This is a legality review rather than an administrative review under PAJA.
What are the grounds for review under Section 22 of the Superior Courts Act? Section 22 of the Superior Courts Act provides four grounds for review: absence of jurisdiction on the part of the court; interest in the cause, bias, malice or corruption on the part of the presiding officer; gross irregularity in the proceedings; and the admission of inadmissible or incompetent evidence or the rejection of admissible or competent evidence.
How did the second respondent attempt to have the review application dismissed? The second respondent attempted to have the review application dismissed by arguing it was brought outside the time limits prescribed by Section 7(1) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA), which requires review applications to be brought within 180 days. He cited BJM v MAM to argue that the absence of a condonation application was fatal to the applicant’s case.
Why did the court reject the argument that PAJA applied to this review application? The court rejected the argument that PAJA applied because this was a legality review under Section 22 of the Superior Courts Act, not an administrative review. The court clarified that judicial actions are generally not considered “administrative actions” subject to PAJA, and Section 22 does not specify a time period within which review applications must be brought.
What constitutes a “gross irregularity” in magistrate’s court proceedings according to the judgment? According to the judgment, citing Ablansky v Bulman, a gross irregularity in civil proceedings in a magistrate’s court means an irregular act or omission by the presiding judicial officer in respect of proceedings of such a nature that it is prejudicial to the aggrieved litigant. Courts will set aside such proceedings unless satisfied that the litigant has not suffered any prejudice.
Why couldn’t the High Court simply reinstate the original divorce order of 11 July 2022? The High Court couldn’t simply reinstate the original divorce order because, as acknowledged by the second respondent, the Brackenfell property had already been sold and the proceeds divided between the parties. The situation had changed and a simple reinstatement would not restore the parties to their original positions.
What case did the court rely on to justify its decision to substitute its own order rather than remit the matter back to the magistrate’s court? The court relied on Trencon Construction v Industrial Development Corporation to justify its decision to substitute its own order. This Constitutional Court case established factors to consider when deciding whether substitution is justified, including whether the court is in as good a position as the original decision-maker, whether the outcome is a foregone conclusion, and considerations of delay, bias or incompetence.
What remedy did the High Court provide to address the consequences of the magistrate’s unauthorized actions? The High Court appointed a Receiver to take charge of the division of the joint estate. The Receiver was granted extensive powers to determine the extent of the joint estate as at the date of divorce, value all assets and liabilities, realize assets as necessary, and effect an equal division between the parties.
How did the court address the fact that the applicant had explained her delay in filing the review application? The court accepted the applicant’s explanation that her delay in filing the review application was occasioned by bona fide ignorance of the law. She was unaware that review proceedings were possible until she consulted with an attorney who advised her to file the application. The court found this explanation reasonable in the circumstances.
What did the court mean when it stated that “magistrates’ courts are creatures of statutes”? When the court stated that “magistrates’ courts are creatures of statutes,” it meant that these courts have no jurisdiction beyond what is provided for in the enabling statute. This principle, cited from Vorster v Clothing City (Pty) Ltd, emphasises that magistrates’ courts have limited authority derived solely from legislation and cannot exceed those statutory powers.
What was inconsistent about the second respondent’s position regarding the magistrate’s orders? The second respondent’s position was inconsistent because in his opposing affidavit, he claimed the court “erred in its order when it awarded an order that had not been prayed for by any of the parties,” while elsewhere suggesting the final divorce decree was only granted on 5 September 2022. These positions were mutually contradictory, as noted by the court, which undermined his credibility.
What specific protection did the court order regarding the parties’ assets pending the division of the joint estate? The court ordered that pending the division of the joint estate, neither party would in any way dispose of nor encumber any assets, other than in accordance with their living requirements. This protection was put in place to ensure that the assets remained available for equitable division by the Receiver.
Why was the appointment of a Receiver considered appropriate in this case? The appointment of a Receiver was considered appropriate because the court was not in a position to ascertain the financial status of the second respondent or whether he could restore the applicant to the position ordered by the magistrate on 11 July 2022. The Receiver could properly investigate the joint estate, value assets and liabilities, and effect an equal division in a fair and transparent manner.
What costs order did the court make and why? The court ordered the second respondent to pay the costs of the application on scale B. This decision reflects the court’s view that the second respondent’s opposition to the review application was not bona fide, particularly given his inconsistent positions regarding the validity of the magistrate’s actions and his apparent satisfaction with the irregular order when it benefited him financially.
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town and founder of DivorceOnline and iANC. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here.
DOWNLOAD THE JUDGEMENT HERE: