Capacity: Judge
First appointed as Judge: December 2019 (Western Cape High Court)
Gender: Female
Ethnicity: Coloured
Date of Birth: January 1972
Qualifications: BA (1993) LLB (1995) (UCT), LLM (Constitutional and International Law) (2002) (UNISA), LLM (Criminal Justice) (2006) (UCT)
Key Judgments:
- Rapivest 12 (Pty) Ltd v Airports Company South Africa SOC Ltd; Airports Company South Africa SOC Ltd v Rapivest 12 (Pty) Ltd [2018] ZAWCHC 16
- Road Accident Fund v Chin 2018 (3) SA 547 (WCC)
- Jack v National Director of Public Prosecutions [2023] ZAWHCH 284
- Haze Club (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Police [2023] 1 All SA 280 (WCC)
- South African Human Rights Commission v City of Cape Town [2022] 4 All SA 475 (WCC)
Candidate Biography (updated August 2024):
Judge Hayley Slingers is a judge of the Western Cape High Court, Cape Town.
She holds a BA (1993) and LLB (1995) and an LLM in criminal justice (2006) from the University of Cape Town. She also obtained an LLM in Constitutional and International Law from the University of South Africa in 2002.
After graduating Slingers worked as an attorney before joining the National Prosecuting Authority as a prosecutor in 2002. She rose within those ranks serving as a senior state advocate (2003-2008) and then deputy director at the NPA (2008-2010) before joining the Cape Bar in 2010.
Judge Hayley Slingers is currently a Judge of the Western Cape High Court, having been appointed in December 2019. She previously acted at the Western Cape Division of the High Court between 2017 and 2019, until her permanent appointment, whilst being an advocate. She is also a member of the Wynberg Small Claims Advisory Board and continues to assist the Cape Bar with the judicial training of pupils.
Her illustrious and diverse legal career has allowed her to develop and hone her administrative and leadership abilities, and acquire a high degree of skill in dealing with complex legal issues and delivering timely, outstanding judgments.
As an acting and subsequently permanent Judge of the Western Cape High Court, Judge Hayley Slingers has written numerous important judgments. In Rapivest 12 (Pty) Ltd v Airports Company South Africa (Acsa), the applicant sought to review and set aside a tender process that was conducted by the first respondent for a jewellery concession to be operated at Cape Town International Airport. The second respondent was then awarded the concession, and signed a lease agreement with Acsa. Before the tender process, the applicant was in possession of the concession, and was the lessee of the premises concerned. After the applicant failed to file an application for judicial review within the 180-day limit under section 7(1) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Slingers had to decide whether it would be in the interest of justice to grant the application for the extension of the 180-day period.
Slingers considered facts including the explanation for the delay, whether the impugned decision was given effect to, whether the delay caused any prejudice to those affected by the decision, public interest considerations, and a consideration of the merits of the review application. She found that the applicant had provided a full and adequate explanation for the delay and because the lease agreement had not yet been implemented, the impugned decision was not given effect to.
With regard to the merits of the review application, Slingers held that the second respondent failed to show that it would be just and equitable to evict the applicant from the premises. Holding that the validity of the lease agreement between the first and second Respondent was called into question since it originated from an invalid award, Slingers concluded that the lease agreement was not in accordance with a system that was fair, equitable, competitive and cost effective as required by section 217(1) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the second respondent had failed to prove that the applicant was unlawfully in occupation of the premises.
Judge Hayley Slingers granted the application for an extension of the 180-day period; reviewed and set aside the award of the tender to the second respondent; and declared the lease agreement between the two invalid. An appeal to the Constitutional Court by the Second Respondent was dismissed on 2 May 2019.
In the matter of Haze Club (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Police, the second and third applicants had been arrested at the first applicant’s premises, as a result of being in possession of cannabis plants and dried cannabis valued at approximately R1 million, which was seized by the Police. The applicants sought a declaratory order confirming the lawfulness of a “grow club” model in line with what was stated in the case of Prince 3 about the private cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal consumption in a private space, being a socialised system of cannabis cultivation in terms of which the applicants rented out private space to members for such members to grow their own cannabis for personal consumption, while employing the applicants as professional horticulturalists to attend to the cultivation of such plants, and alternatively, a declaration that sections 4(b) and 5(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992, and section 22A(9)(a)(i) of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act 101 of 1965 were unconstitutional.
In dismissing the applicants’ claims, Slingers considered the judgment in Prince 3, and stated that the court in the Prince 3 case had found that the right to privacy in section 14 of the Constitution was infringed by the impugned statutory provisions to the extent that they prohibited the cultivation of cannabis by an adult in a private place for his or her personal consumption in private. The court had further reiterated that the reasonable expectation of privacy test consists of two inquiries. Firstly, there must be a subjective expectation of privacy, and secondly the expectation must be recognised as reasonable by society.
Slingers held that in this case there was an evident difference between the nature and scope of the private space exercised within the grow club model and the nature and scope of the private space referenced in Prince 3, with the grow club model moving away from an individual’s inner sanctum to a more communal sphere. She disagreed that the applicants were no different from a home gardener cultivating cannabis. As the grow club model did not result in members cultivating cannabis for their own consumption in a private place, it was not shown to be consistent with Prince 3.
These judgments are clear indications of Slingers’ ability to deal with complex and important issues, and to deliver well-constructed and reasoned judgments having an immense affect on crucial legal issues. Considering how she has performed as both an acting and permanent Judge, and her experience in management, it will be interesting to see whether she will be appointed as Judge President of the Western Cape High Court in light of her having been on the bench for a relatively few years.
October 2024 Interview:
October 2019 Interview:
October 2019 Interview Synopsis:
Judge Hayley Slingers was the eighth candidate to be interviewed on this day. All the commissioners seemingly exhausted, the CJ commenced with background questions relating to her qualifications, which she has obtained from various universities. The CJ dwelled on environmental law questions, considering that Slingers holds a master’s degree in environmental law and considering the drought in Cape Town which almost led to ‘day zero’.
Slingers expressed a concerning sentiment regarding organised crime when she said, “we are losing the battle”. She is of the view that lack of adequate resources is the underlying issue. She alluded to human trafficking, in which money is injected into the organised crime for the perpetrators to gain more money from the organised crime. She emphasised that in order to curb organised crimes more money must be injected into the necessary resources.
In illustration of her qualifications and experience Slingers expertly answered a question posed by the Judge President of the Western Cape Division, John Hlophe. The question related to public international law and specifically on what is required from a state in order to be recognised as a state. Stating that a state needs the recognition of other states in order to be a state and acquire the benefits of being a state. However, such recognition by other states does not mean that the state is not a state if it is not afforded such recognition by such other states. Slingers answered the question so perfectly to such an extent that the JP rested his case and posed no further questions.
Commissioner Singh who always pays attention to detail noted that it was for the first time that they had a candidate who had stipulated in her application that she was unemployed at some point in her career. Slingers confirmed that she was indeed unemployed for a period of five months at some point in her career. Despite such hurdles Slingers never lost her motivation.
Upon being asked by the CJ what her secret is in that she has never had any reserved judgments longer than three months, Slingers noted her “secrets” as follows: hard work, working smart, planning ahead and being prepared! This should be general knowledge for all judicial officers.”
