Gauteng High Court Judge Letty Molopa-Sethosa is facing a misconduct investigation by the Judicial Conduct Tribunal, which could lead to her impeachment.
This investigation arises from a complaint by Ms Sanet Bruton regarding an inordinate delay in handing down a judgment; Ms Bruton is one of the parties involved in the delayed judgment.
The Tribunal still needs to be appointed by Chief Justice Maya in terms of s21 of the JSC Act.
October 2013: Trial on the merits commenced before the respondent.
14 October 2022: Argument on the merits concluded and judgment reserved.
3 August 2023: Respondent issued an order without reasons.
9 April 2025: Ms Bruton lodged a complaint with the JSC.
18 May 2026: The JCC issued its ruling in terms of s17(4) of the JSC Act that the complaint be referred to the Full Committee for a recommendation that a Tribunal be appointed.
This complaint against Judge Molopa-Sethosa was made by Ms Sanet Bruton, a party to a matter that Judge Molopa-Sethosa adjudicated.
The matter is rooted in the events of 2008, where Ms Bruton and her father were unlawfully arrested by the police. They instituted a civil action in 2011 against the Minister of Police, who defended it on various grounds. The matter was ready for trial in 2013 and was allocated to the respondent in this complaint, Judge Molopa-Sethosa. At the parties’ request, the respondent ordered that the determination of liability be separated from the decision on quantum of damages.
The trial on the merits began in October 2013 and, delayed by repeated postponements, ran until 14 October 2022, when the respondent heard final argument and reserved judgment.
Almost ten months later, on 3 August 2023, the respondent issued an order without reasons. The Minister of Police’s attorneys promptly requested written reasons under rule 49 of the Uniform Rules of the High Court, but despite numerous follow-up queries and reminders, none were provided. This failure that continued until 3 April 2026.
This left the complainant’s case effectively in limbo, prejudicing both parties: the Minister could not appeal without the reasons, and the complainant could not move on to the quantum phase. As a result, litigation that began in 2011 remains far from resolved, with the respondent’s delay a substantial contributing factor. In total, it took the respondent more than three years and five months to furnish reasons for her decision on the merits.
In Judge Molopa-Sethosa’s response to the complaint, despite pointing out that the trial record was “huge”, she acknowledged that she was at fault for not finishing in a reasonable time. Despite several reminders, the Judge notes that the matter “slipped through the cracks” due to the high workload in the Gauteng Division, Pretoria. In this matter, satisfactory mitigating factors on behalf of Judge Molopa-Sethosa are yet to be advanced.
In terms of section 16(1) of the Judicial Service Commission Act, the chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee is required to assess a complaint and satisfy themselves that, if established, it is likely to lead to a finding of gross misconduct. They must then refer the complaint to the full Judicial Conduct Committee for further processing.
During this preliminary stage of the complaint, only the complainant’s statement is on record – the judges’ version of events is not yet on record. Only when it reaches the next stage of the process is the judge invited to give their version under section 16(2) of the JSC Act.
Justice Jafta classified Ms Bruton’s complaint as one that, if proven, would constitute gross incompetence or gross misconduct on behalf of the respondent. Jafta has referred the complaint to the full JCC in terms of s17(4) of the JSC Act.
In terms of section 16(1) of the Judicial Service Commission Act, the chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee is required to assess a complaint and satisfy themselves that, if established, it is likely to lead to a finding of gross misconduct. They must then refer the complaint to the full Judicial Conduct Committee for further processing.
During this preliminary stage of the complaint, only the complainant’s statement is on record – the judges’ version of events is not yet on record. Only when it reaches the next stage of the process is the judge invited to give their version under section 16(2) of the JSC Act.
Justice Jafta classified Ms Bruton’s complaint as one that, if proven, would constitute gross incompetence or gross misconduct on behalf of the respondent. Jafta has referred the complaint to the full JCC in terms of s17(4) of the JSC Act
The complaint was sent to Judge Molopa-Sethosa on 9 March 2026, requesting that she respond to the allegations made against her. She furnished a response on 30 March 2026. After all of these documents were filed, it was determined that the complaint could be decided on the papers already filed and that an oral hearing was not necessary.
Designated by the Acting Chairperson, retired Constitutional Court Justice Chris Jafta, to conduct the inquiry, handed down his decision on 18 May 2026. Jafta found a prima facie (probable) case of gross judicial misconduct or gross incompetence against Molopa-Sethosa, which, if confirmed, could lead to her impeachment.
After receiving reasons in April 2026, the complainant attempted to withdraw the complaint. The Committee ruled that this had no legal effect, as it alone holds authority to process complaints. The purpose of this is to protect the Judiciary’s integrity, not merely individual litigants’ interests.
The JCC’s decision relies on Judge President Mlambo v Judge N P Mngqibisa-Thusi, which states that delays in delivering judgments may in appropriate cases constitute gross incompetence or gross misconduct.
The JCC recommended, under section 17(4) of the JSC Act, that this complaint be referred to the Full Committee for a Judicial Conduct Tribunal to probe the matter further.
See: JCC Ruling on Molopa-Sethosa (18 May 2026)