Case  CCT34/26
[2026] ZACC 31

Hearing Date: 28 May 2026

Judgement Date: 07 July 2026

Post Judgment Media Summary  

The following explanatory note is provided to assist the media in reporting this case and is not binding on the Constitutional Court or any member of the Court.

On Tuesday, 7 July 2026, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in an application for leave to appeal directly against three orders of the High Court of South Africa, Eastern Circuit Local Division, Thembalethu (High Court), and leave to cross-appeal directly against part of an order of the same Court. The applicant is Thabang Motjamela, a self-represented litigant who, in 2018, was employed temporarily under the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) to conduct road maintenance for the George Local Municipality (Local Municipality). The respondent is the Local Municipality.

Upon the expiry of his EPWP contracts, Mr Motjamela pursued extensive legal proceedings before the South African Local Government Bargaining Council, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, the High Court, the Labour Court, the Labour Appeal Court, and the Constitutional Court against the Local Municipality and the Garden Route District Municipality, seeking either to be hired on a permanent basis or given a settlement. All of these efforts were unsuccessful.

Both the District Municipality and the Local Municipality sought to have Mr Motjamela declared a vexatious litigant and restrained from instituting further proceedings against them. The District Municipality was unsuccessful. However, the Local Municipality succeeded in its application, and the High Court declared Mr Motjamela a vexatious litigant and barred him from instituting legal proceedings against any party in any parallel or inferior court without leave of that court (vexatious litigant order). The applicant subsequently sought leave to appeal the judgment, and sought the recusal of the presiding Judge. The High Court suspended the applications for leave to appeal and recusal, declaring that Mr Motjamela appeared, by reason of mental illness or intellectual disability, to be unable to understand the proceeding. It issued an order requiring Mr Motjamela to submit himself for an assessment of his mental health within 10 days, and to present the resulting report to the Court in order for his matters to proceed. When Mr Motjamela failed to attend the mental health assessment, the High Court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal and recusal and issued an order barring Mr Motjamela from instituting any further proceedings before it unless accompanied by a report on his mental health (mental health assessment order). Mr Motjamela attempted to appeal the judgments and orders to the Supreme Court of Appeal, but his application was not processed due to non-compliance with court procedure.

In the Constitutional Court, Mr Motjamela argued that the vexatious litigant order and mental health assessment order, coupled with the Supreme Court of Appeal’s refusal to process his emailed application for leave to appeal, violated his right to access the courts and left direct leave to appeal to this Court as his only avenue for obtaining justice. On the vexatious litigant order, he argued that the order is overbroad, as it prevents him from instituting legal proceedings against any party in any parallel or inferior court without the leave of that court. In relation to the mental health assessment order, Mr Motjamela argued that the Local Municipality did not seek the order, and no evidence was placed before the High Court to support the order. He argued that the order violated his rights to dignity, freedom and security of person, and privacy under sections 10, 12, and 14 of the Constitution, respectively.

The Local Municipality opposed the application on the basis that it raised no genuine constitutional issue engaging this Court’s jurisdiction, and that this was merely a further example of Mr Motjamela’s vexatious litigation. It argued that vexatious litigant orders writ large are constitutionally compliant, and the order of the High Court was not overbroad in the circumstances. It further argued that Mr Motjamela’s refusal to file his leave to appeal application in person or via courier with the Supreme Court of Appeal did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting leave to appeal directly to this Court. Regarding the mental health assessment order, it argued that the High Court appropriately exercised its discretion under section 173 of the Constitution. It also sought conditional leave to cross-appeal directly to this Court to limit the scope of the vexatious litigant order if this Court found that its jurisdiction was engaged.

On 28 May 2026, this Court issued a partial order declaring the High Court’s interim and final mental health assessment orders unconstitutional and setting them aside. That order stated that further orders and reasons would follow by way of a short judgment.

In that short judgment, this Court found that the vexatious litigant order and mental health assessment order, coupled with the refusal of the Supreme Court of Appeal to process Mr Motjamela’s application for leave to appeal, blocked Mr Motjamela’s access to the courts. Further, the mental health assessment order infringed on Mr Motjamela’s rights under sections 10, 12 and 14 of the Constitution. The matter thus engaged this Court’s jurisdiction and leave to appeal directly was warranted. The Local Municipality’s conditional leave to cross-appeal was also granted.

On the merits, this Court found that the vexatious litigant order was overbroad. An order of such scope was not sought by the Local Municipality, and evidence was not placed before the High Court that Mr Motjamela had litigated in an abusive or vexatious manner in other matters. The order thus fell to be set aside and replaced with an order preventing further litigation by Mr Motjamela relating to the EPWP contracts.

Regarding the interim and final mental health assessment orders, this Court found that the High Court ignored established processes for addressing concerns about a litigant’s legal capacity in civil proceedings. Instead, it based its findings and issued the orders solely on the presiding Judge’s observations of Mr Motjamela from the bench, without the orders being sought and without any evidence being placed before the Court.

This Court found that an established process exists under rule 57 of the Uniform Rules of Court for the appointment of a curator ad litem (litigation guardian) to assist the court and an applicant who appears to be unable to litigate on their own behalf due to mental illness or intellectual disability. This affords the court the evidence it needs to properly assess the litigant’s situation while preserving the litigant’s dignity and privacy. The interim order and final order compelling Mr Motjamela to obtain a mental health assessment as a precondition to pursuing further litigation thus fell to be set aside and were disposed of by way of an order of this Court issued on 28 May 2026.

This Court noted the extensive litigation history between the parties, and that Mr Motjamela currently has six applications relating to his employment disputes before it. It thus exercised its inherent jurisdiction under section 173 of the Constitution to direct the Registrar not to accept any further applications from Mr Motjamela which relate to his employment disputes. The direct appeal and direct cross-appeal were upheld, the High Court’s vexatious litigant order was set aside and replaced with an order limited to Mr Motjamela’s employment disputes, the mental health assessment orders were set aside, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs. 

The Full judgment  here