Judges Matter -

Enter your keyword

Advocate Sarita Liebenberg

  • Home
  • Advocate Sarita Liebenberg
Adv S Liebenberg_9008

Capacity: Advocate
Admission as an advocate: June 2000
Gender: Female
Ethnicity: White
Date of Birth: November 1972
Qualifications: BA (1994) LLB (1996) BA Hons (2005) (University of Johannesburg)

Key judgments:

 

Candidate Biography | Updated August 2025:

Adv Sarita Liebenberg is an Advocate and member of Advocates Group 21 in Sandton.

She has been a practicing advocate for 25 years, having been admitted as a member of the Johannesburg Society of Advocates on 26 June 2000. During this time she has acted as a judge in the Johannesburg High Court on 7 occasions, totalling 23 weeks, dating back to April 2020. Her latest stint as an acting judge was from 19 May to 20 June 2025. She has delivered 38 judgments in that time.

After obtaining her BA degree in 1994, Adv Liebenberg commenced her articles of clerkship in January 1995 on a 3-year contract. During this time she finalised her LLB studies by attending evening classes at UJ, then-RAU. She was subsequently admitted as an attorney in 1997. Her practice included general civil litigation, and family law. She then commenced pupillage in January 2000 and was admitted as an advocate later that year. In her first 8 years at the bar, her practice included mostly civil trials in the lower courts and unopposed motion proceedings in the high court. In 2009 she completed a mediation training program and in 2013 her practice evolved to one specialised in family and matrimonial work. During this period, she has appeared in some significant matters, in particular the matter of LD v Central Authority in the SCA, which concerned the return of a minor child from South Africa to her country of habitual residence, being Luxembourg.

In addition to her normal practice, she has taken on additional voluntary duties, such as presenting informal lectures for her chambers, Group 21, in Sandton. She also attended an advocacy training course presented by the General Counsel of the Bar in 2023, and has since then assisted with the Johannesburg Society of Advocate’s training for pupils. She has been a member of the Gauteng Family Law Forum (GFLF) since 2016, and was voted onto the executive committee in 2023. She has been the vice-chairperson of the GFLF since 2023.

Whilst serving as an acting judge, Adv Liebenberg presided over the matter of Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Snyman De Jager Attorneys, in which an urgent application was brought by Standard Bank as the creditor for an anti-dissipation interdict to prevent the proceeds from the sale of the debtor’s property from being dissipated. In a well-written and comprehensive judgment, Liebenberg evaluated the urgency of the matter and determined that the imminent property transfer justified the urgent hearing.

The applicant argued that the proceeds should be preserved for the general body of creditors pending the outcome of sequestration proceedings against the second respondent. The application was based on the apprehension that the second respondent would dissipate the proceeds, which would prejudicially affect the creditors. Liebenberg noted that an anti-dissipation interdict is a species of interim interdicts, which may be granted where a respondent is believed to be deliberately arranging its affairs in such a manner of as to render eventual execution hollow. Its purpose is to preserve the assets in issue between the parties. She scrutinised whether the applicant met the requirements for an anti-dissipation interdict which included the existence of a prima facie right, apprehension of irreparable harm, balance of convenience in the applicant’s favour, and lack of alternative remedies and found the applicant’s concerns valid and their need to preserve assets justified, particularly given the second respondent’s financial distress and refusal to voluntarily safeguard the proceeds.

She refuted the second respondent’s in limine objections which challenged the urgency and merits of the application, among others. Consequently, she granted the interim relief sought, pending the sequestration proceeding’s resolution.

In one of her more recent judgments in the matter of M T K v S, Liebenberg was faced with an appeal against a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment imposed on the appellant, a first offender convicted of murder. The appellant argued that the trial court erred by not investigating his personal circumstances when imposing sentence, and contended that the sentence was excessive. Liebenberg considered the principles governing appellate interference with sentence, emphasising that such interference is warranted only where the trial court misdirected itself or imposed a sentence so inappropriate as to induce a sense of shock.

Reviewing the trial court’s conduct, she found that the relevant circumstances – age, relationship to the deceased, parenthood and the lack of prior offences – were on record and had been appropriately considered, even though the appellant did not testify in mitigation. She distinguished various case law and highlighted the seriousness of the offence, particularly the brutal, unprovoked nature of the attack, the multiple stab wounds inflicted on an unarmed woman, and the context of pervasive gender-based violence in South Africa. Under these circumstances, she concluded that the sentence was justified in law and fact. Accordingly, the appeal against sentence was dismissed, affirming the need for the judiciary to respond robustly to gender-based violence and uphold the goals of deterrence and protection of society.

These two judgments indicate that although her speciality is family law, Liebenberg has an acute and comprehensive grasp of the law, and is able to deliver well-written and legally astute judgments on matters of criminal law and other civil litigation. The fact that she has delivered 38 judgments during her acting stints, and the quality of those judgments, stand her in good stead to be appointed permanently to the bench.

October 2025 Interview: 

The Judicial Service Commission interviewed candidates for eight vacancies in the Gauteng Division of the High Court. Following deliberations, the Commission had resolved not to recommend Advocate Sarita Liebenberg for the position.

Advocate Sarita Liebenberg’s interview was unsuccessful.