Judges Matter -

Enter your keyword

Adv Ettian Raubenheimer

  • Home
  • Adv Ettian Raubenheimer

Capacity: Advocate
Admission as an advocate: August 2005
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: White
Date of Birth: June 1962
Qualifications: Police Administration Diploma (1987) (Department of National Education), BLC (1988) (UP), LLB (1995) LLM (1999) (UNISA), Tax Practice Diploma (2000) (UJ), MBA (2002) (Newport University)

 

 

Key judgments:

 

Candidate Biography | Updated August 2025:

Advocate Ettian Raubenheimer is an advocate practicing out of the Gauteng Society of Advocates.

He has had an interesting legal career to date. Before venturing into law, he obtained a national diploma in police administration through the then Department of National Education in 1987, before obtaining a BLC from Pretoria University in 1988. His studies continued and he obtained his LLB and LLM from UNISA in 1995 and 1999 respectively, before being awarded a diploma in tax practice from UJ in 2000 and an MBA from Newport University in 2002.

Raubenheimer’s career depicts that of someone who is an extremely successful multitasker. He started his career as a police officer for 14 years from 1982, before completing his articles of clerkship and practicing as an attorney and notary at his own firm from 1998 to 2005 whilst also working as a part-time lecturer at Tshwane University of Technology for criminal law and management science. He then completed pupillage and was admitted to the Johannesburg Society of Advocates. During this time he has also worked as a part-time lecturer in commercial law, business law, tax law, and company law at UP between 2000 and 2011. He has also lectured tax law for UJ’s postgraduate diploma since 2015. To top all of this off, he is currently registered for his LLD at UP in procedural law.

Adding to his expansive and diverse legal career, Raubenheimer is currently the vice-chairperson of the executive committee and the chairperson of the training and development committee of the Gauteng Society of Advocates. He has served on the Tax Board from 2019 to 2023, and will serve again between 2024 and 2029. He is also a member of various professional organisations. He has been sitting as a commissioner of the Small Claims Court in Pretoria since 2023, has served as on the academic advice committee of Stadio Higher Education and has also been a course developer and author of LLB, LLM, and postgraduate modules at Stadio Higher Education since 2022. Further, he currently serves as the chairperson of the standards committee of the South African Professional Trainers Association, and as a mentor to final year UP law students, and on the disciplinary committee of the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors (IRBA). Raubenheimer also has publications in the legal field, such as a chapter in a 2024 book on small business management.

During his time as an advocate, he has appeared in some significant matters, such as Dawson v Sidney on Vaal Communal Property Association, which dealt with the socio-economic rights of land claims beneficiaries.

He has served as an acting judge of both the Pretoria and Johannesburg high courts across 33 weeks, beginning in November 2021, and with the most recent being June 2025. During his time as an acting judge, he has delivered timeous, concise and well-written judgments, which have been held in high regard by his fellow legal officers.

In Mabe v Minister of Police, the applicant sued for damages claiming unlawful arrest and detention after being arrested at his home on 26 December 2017 and detained until 29 December 2017. The respondent’s witnesses described a police lookout for a hijacked vehicle, GPS tracking, discovery of an abandoned vehicle, and sighting of a black Fortuner which fled and entered the applicant’s premises. Police entered the premises without a warrant, found the applicant and goods that the complainant identified as stolen, and arrested and detained the applicant. The issues before Raubenheimer were whether the warrantless arrest of the applicant was lawful under sections 40 and 41 of the Criminal Procedure Act, whether the police had had reasonable grounds or suspicion for arresting the applicant, and whether the applicant’s detention was lawful. He noted that the only purpose for effecting an arrest without a warrant in terms of sections 40 and 41 is to bring a person to court, and that the essence of the requirement of reasonable suspicion is that an arresting officer must entertain a reasonable suspicion in respect of the commission of a specific type of crime by the person to be arrested, which suspicion must be based on factual grounds. Based on this, and on the evidence provided, he held that the arresting officers had reasonable grounds to suspect the applicant’s involvement in the offence, that the arrest complied with the legal requirements for a warrantless arrest, and that the subsequent detention was lawful due to the applicant being brought to court within the prescribed timeframe of 48 hours and a lack of evidence to establish the illegality of further detention.

Raubenheimer delivered another comprehensive and astute judgment in the matter of Merchant West Specialised Finance (Pty) Ltd v Le Grange. In this matter Merchant West sought an interim interdict to restrain Le Grange for 12 months from soliciting their customers, rendering competing services, inducing employees or suppliers, associating with a named alleged competitor, and disclosing confidential information. Le Grange had resigned after responding to a LinkedIn advertisement; he had not yet commenced employment with the alleged competitor when the application was launched. Raubenheimer had to determine, among other issues, whether Merchant West had a protectable interest sufficient to enforce the restraint of trade set out in their employment agreement with Le Grange, and whether Le Grange’s proposed employment with the alleged competitor amounted to a breach of the restraint of trade. Raubenheimer set out the principles relating to restraints of trade concisely and in detail, and emphasised that enforcement of a restraint requires proof of a protectable interest, being either trade connections/goodwill or confidential trade secrets, and sufficient factual detail in motion proceedings to establish that interest. Merchant West had provided only minimal averments about confidential methodologies, credit scoring and software, without showing uniqueness, economic value, or Le Grange’s access to or involvement with such information. Le Grange’s roles were junior, of short duration in credit, and later administrative with limited access to systems. The restraint clause was construed by Raunbenheimer as preventing Le Grange from personally rendering services to Merchant West’s customers, not from taking ordinary employment with another employer. Because Merchant West had failed to prove a protectable interest or any breach, the application was dismissed with costs.

Throughout his legal career Raubenheimer has shown versatility and great legal understanding. He has experience as an advocate in various areas of the law, and as an acting judge has heard a diverse range of civil litigation matters. He has consistently produced well-written judgments, and has gone beyond the normal scope required of any legal practitioner by undertaking various leadership and public interest positions; this all points to his suitability for permanent appointment 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 Ettian Raubenheimer for the position.

Advocate Ettian Raubenheimer’s interview was unsuccessful.