Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

1] This judgment addresses a preliminary controversy that arose in the matter of Ex Parte Goosen & Others, Case no 2019/2137 before a Full Court of the Division. The controversy was an application that one of the judges, Millar AJ, recuse himself. An order was made dismissing the application for recusal and Millar AJ continued to sit. The judgment on the merits in that matter has been given separately. This judgment gives the reasons for the dismissal of the recusal application.

[2] The Full Court was composed of Sutherland and Modiba JJ and Millar AJ. When the judge president acting in terms of section 14(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, convened the Full Court, the composition of the bench was decided by him.

[3] The matter of Ex Parte Goosen and others concerned a controversy regarding the proper interpretation of a point of law. The law in question was the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014. The controversy arose when certain applications came before the Gauteng Local Division for admission to practice in terms of section 3 of the Advocates Admission Act 74 of 1964 (AAA).