First admitted as an advocate: November 2007
Date of Birth: June 1983
Qualifications: LLB (University of Pretoria)
- DPP Limpopo v Patel & Another  ZALCC 10 (30 April 2021)
- S v Seroka (REV 93/2021)  ZALMPPHC 64; 2021 (2) SACR 622 (LP) (30 September 2021)
- Rabalao v Mogoje (3113/2019)  ZALMPPHC 101 (10 December 2020)
- OMJ Projects (Pty) Ltd and one other v The Minister of Police and two others ZALMPPHC –bZ
- Gaboinewe Investments (Pty) Ltd v D-fence Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd (539/2020)  ZAECELLC 10 (12 March 2021)
It surely can be said that Advocate Marisa Naude-Odendaal is “a jack of all trades”. She has climbed through the legal ranks from being an attorney, a conveyancer, and an advocate, and now she wants to become a judge.
Since her admission as an attorney in November 2007, Naude-Odendaal has focused on a broad diversity of areas of law. She was exposed to conveyancing, estate administration, criminal and civil litigation. Her practice later shifted focus and turned into a general litigation practice. She later became an advocate, with a practice focused on civil law.
In her JSC application, Naude-Odendaal explains that she has always aspired to become a judge. To back up this aspiration, she first sought experience on the bench by becoming an acting magistrate, and later a commissioner of the Small Claims Court. She then became the chairperson of the Tax Board in Limpopo (a position she currently occupies), having been appointed by the then Minister of Finance, Tito Mboweni, for a period of five years (2018 – 2023).
Since July 2020, Naude-Odendaal has acted as a judge on four separate stints and has dealt with a variety of cases. One of these cases is DPP Limpopo v Patel & Another, which confirms the legal principle in respect of criminal law and civil procedure in bail applications in relation to jurisdiction. In this case, the accused (Mr Patel, the first respondent in the appeal) was granted bail by the Magistrates Court (who was the second respondent). The bail was granted by the magistrate even though the criminal case had been transferred to the High Court, and by that time the accused had already appeared before the High Court. The Director of Public Prosecutions lodged an appeal against the granting of the bail to the High Court, alleging that the Magistrates Court did not have the necessary jurisdiction to grant bail to the accused as the matter had been transferred to the High Court.
The issues of this case, therefore, turned on section 60(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedures Act 51 of 1977 (the CPA). This section, inter alia, provides that ‘the court referring an accused to any other court for trial or sentencing retains jurisdiction relating to the powers, functions and duties in respect of bail in terms of this Act until the accused appears in such other court for the first time.’ Naude-Odendaal found that the granting of bail by the magistrate, after the accused had appeared before the High Court where it was ordered that the accused remains in custody, was irregular. The magistrate in effect sat as a court of appeal, which was not permissible. If this were to be allowed, Naude-Odendaal continued, it would allow for accused people to ‘forum shop’ in relation to bail applications. This could not have been the intention of the legislature when drafting section 60 of the CPA, Naude-Odendaal concluded.
The thirty-nine-year-old Advocate Naude-Odendaal holds an LLB degree from the University of Pretoria.
April 2022 Interview
October 2021 Interview
On Wednesday 5 October 2021, Adv Marisa Naudé-Odendaal was interviewed for a position within the Limpopo Division of the High Court. This was her first-ever appearance before the JSC. Following deliberations, no candidates were selected for nomination to the Limpopo Division of the High Court (JHB and PTA)
There are unfortunately no recordings available for Wednesday 5 October. This includes the final interviews for the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Limpopo Division of the High Court, and the Electoral Court.