Capacity: Judge
First appointed as a judge: May 2012 (South Gauteng High Court)
Further Appointments: Competition Appeal Court (2018)
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Indian
Date of Birth: May 1959
Qualifications: B.Com (1982) BA (Hons) (1983) LLM (Labour Law) (1994) LLB (1996) (Wits), MA (Sociology) (1985) (Warwick University, UK)
Key judgments:
- Nkala v Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited [2016] ZAGPJHC 97
- Twine v Naidoo [2017] ZAGPJHC 288
- Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of S A; In re: Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of S A and Others (9 May 2017) (24396/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 148
- Black Eagle Project Roodekrans v MEC: Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, Gauteng Provincial Department (6085/07) [2019] ZAGPJHC 23
- A.V v D.C (40522/19) [2024] ZAGPJHC 626
- Resilient Rock (Pty) Ltd v Voltex (Pty) Ltd T/A Atlas Group [2025] ZASCA 33
Candidate Biography | Updated February 2026:
Judge Bashier Vally is a judge of the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg.
Despite presiding in the Johannesburg seat of the Gauteng High Court, Judge Vally was appointed as a Judge of the Competition Appeal Court from 2018 till April 2023, where he has remained as an Acting Judge after his five-year appointment came to an end. Previously, he has held various roles in both academic and legal spaces.
Judge Vally grew up in the Johannesburg township of Lenasia and obtained a BComm degree in industrial psychology from Wits University. Following university, Vally became involved in the Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union of South Africa as an “organiser, negotiator and educator”, which deepened his passion for labour law. This led to him completing an LLB from Wits in 1995.
He joined the Johannesburg Bar a year later with his practise focused on labour law and constitutional law. He was a junior counsel until 2010, and practised as a senior counsel from 2010 to 2012.
In 2016, Vally formed part of a full South Gauteng High Court Bench in Nkala v Gold Mining Company, which certified a silicosis class action, opening a breach for a large group of mineworkers to sue the gold mining industry for allegedly not protecting them, for decades, from the effects of silica dust, which causes silicosis and increases the risk of tuberculosis. The claims for mineworkers, estimated to number as high as 500 000, could run into billions of Rands.
The judgment jointly written by Vally and South Gauteng Deputy Judge President Phineas Mojapelo, noted that “the industry left in its trail tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of current and former underground mine workers who suffered from debilitating and incurable silicosis and pulmonary tuberculosis” while reaping huge profits.
The judges wrote that, “With remarkable consistency, [the mineworkers’] evidence reveals that the mining companies stripped them of their dignity, and concomitantly compromised their health and safety, with such intensity and ferocity that they were effectively dehumanised.”
While several of the cases Vally has adjudicated have dealt with labour and union matters, as well as issues of protest and free speech, he has also sat on some that involve the tawdrier side of South African celebrity life.
When musician Steve Hofmeyer had proved tardy in signing his divorce agreement with Natasha Sutherland, and subsequently backed out of maintenance payments of R17 500 per month, Vally, then an acting judge at the South Gauteng High Court, ordered him to step up soonest. He found that Hofmeyer must accept “full responsibility” for the delays, sign up or face the court’s bailiff, and ordered costs against him.
In 2017, Judge Vally provoked the anger of President Jacob Zuma’s supporters when he ordered the former head of state to disclose the record and reasoning behind his midnight cabinet reshuffle, which resulted in the dismissal of Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan.
Vally held that Zuma’s authority was not without limits and that he was legally obliged to act with rationality. His ruling triggered sharp backlash from Zuma’s supporters, with the ANC Youth League in eThekwini denouncing him as an opposition collaborator and urging the JSC to remove him.
The JSC’s secretary, Thinta Cibane, stated: “Any order by a court for the president to justify his decision would amount to a violation of the Constitution and is a spit in the face of the people.” He added: “In a constitutional democracy, there can never be a court order forcing an elected president to account on matters vested in his office, least of all to a party that was rejected by the majority of our people in the polls. Such a judgment is misconduct.”
While these remarks were already among the strongest criticisms directed at the judiciary, they gained further significance when, in February 2021, both former President Zuma and EFF leader Julius Malema (a member of the JSC) made comments that intensified the debate.
In 2024, Judge Vally presided over the case of A.V v D.C., involving a same‑sex couple who sought a declaration that their sperm donor, D.C., was not a parent with parental rights but rather a donor as defined under the Children’s Act. D.C. responded by challenging the constitutionality of the Act. After a careful reading and application of the statute, and with particular emphasis on the best interests of the child, Judge Vally dismissed the constitutional challenge. He held that the applicants were the legal parents of the child, while the donor was entitled only to rights of access.
Although Judge Vally’s October 2022 interview for a position on the Supreme Court of Appeal was unsuccessful, he subsequently served as an acting judge of the court from December 2024 to May 2025. At the age of 66, Judge Vally will be before the JSC for a third attempt at being appointed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
April 2026 Interview
After deliberations, the Judicial Service Commission has resolved to recommend Judge Bashier Vally for appointment to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
October 2025 Interview
October 2025 Interview Synopsis
The general mood of the interview was professional and collegiate, despite the Chief Justice (CJ) noting that the commission was running behind schedule. Judge Vally, described as “no stranger” to the JSC, appeared comfortable and confident, even sharing his pleasant surprise that living in Bloemfontein during his acting stint at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) was “nowhere near as bad” as he had anticipated. The atmosphere remained respectful even when addressing sharp criticisms regarding his judicial philosophy and work ethic.
Two particularly interesting moments occurred when commissioners probed Vally’s interpersonal and professional record. First, he was asked if he had experienced “intellectual bullying” while acting at the SCA. Vally denied being bullied, describing the environment instead as one of “robust discussions” where intellectuals must justify their positions. Second, the CJ confronted him with a Black Lawyers Association (BLA) claim that he possessed a “bad work ethic” and avoided work by refusing to certify matters for trial. Vally vehemently denied this, explaining that his “hard line” on certification was a deliberate strategy to ensure trial readiness and court efficiency, rather than an inclination to do less work. He maintained that those who know his work would say the exact opposite.
The issue likely to determine his recommendation was his adherence to the doctrine of precedent (stare decisis), a concern “foreshadowed” by the General Council of the Bar (GCB). The GCB had suggested that Vally has a “knack of sometimes disregarding precedent,” which could be seen as a disregard for the rule of law. Vally defended his record by explaining that in a specific controversial case regarding contract law, he believed he was following evolving Constitutional Court principles. He conceded that the later Beadica judgment clarified he was incorrect, and he emphasised that he had “learned from that criticism”. His unequivocal assurance to the CJ that he is bound by precedent, whether he agrees with it or not, was likely the most critical factor in his evaluation for the appellate bench.
October 2022 Interview
October 2022 Interview Synopsis:
The general mood of the interview was tense and probing, as commissioners focused heavily on Judge Vally’s temperament and judicial record. While the Deputy Chief Justice noted Vally’s “impressive body of reported judgments” and “good, strong work ethic,” another commissioner recalled an “unpleasant exchange” from a 2018 interview that had left an “unsettling feeling” regarding Vally’s temperament. Vally expressed remorse for the past incident, explaining that “anxiety got the better of me” on that day and maintaining that he has since “learned to accept” the high-pressure demands of the bench.
Two interesting moments involved Vally defending his legal reasoning against criticisms of procedural and substantive errors. In the first, Commissioner Steinberg challenged Vally on a perceived “disregard for the binding nature of Precedence,” citing instances where the appellate court criticised him for ignoring clear legal standards. Vally responded that he believed he was following “constitutional court authority” during a period of legal uncertainty, rather than intentionally ignoring precedent. In the second moment, Vally addressed a complaint regarding his reliance on a “non-existent affidavit” in a finding. He admitted it was a “regrettable error” born from working “late at night” on over 4,000 pages of papers, but he insisted the mistake was “insignificant” because it did not alter the final outcome of the case.
The issues of temperament and adherence to precedent, which were clearly foreshadowed by the General Council of the Bar, played a central role throughout the interview. Vally attempted to reframe descriptions of him being “abrupt and discourteous” as him simply being “firm in court” to ensure order. The primary issue that likely determined his recommendation was whether his “high work ethic” and “scholarly judgments” were sufficient to overcome the commission’s concerns regarding his interpersonal friction and his history of being overturned for failing to follow established law. Despite his apologies and commitment to being a “team player,” the persistent focus on his past “personality clashes” and judicial errors suggests these remain the most significant hurdles for his elevation.
October 2021 Interview
Interview of Judge B Vally by the JSC, October 2021, for a position on the Constitutional Court
October 2021 Interview Synopsis:
The general mood of the interview was tense and formal, as commissioners rigorously scrutinised Judge Vally’s judicial record and his level of preparation for the session. While the session began with an acknowledgement of his extensive background, the atmosphere became more critical when Vally was questioned about his high rate of overturned judgments and his inability to distinguish between reported and reportable cases. Vally admitted his list of judgments was “outdated” and had been prepared by his registrar, leading to a “bone of contention” regarding his readiness for an interview of this magnitude.
Two interesting moments highlighted Vally’s perspective on judicial disagreement and accuracy. When questioned about being overturned in the Capitec case, Vally defended his judgment as being firmly located in the “transformational constitutionalism project” and noted the existing “tension” between the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court regarding contract law. Later, Commissioner Singh presented a news article alleging Vally made a “material error” by relying on a “non-existent” affidavit in an 8 billion rand contract case. Vally dismissed this as a “minor issue” that was “blown way out of proportion,” insisting the error did not alter his final finding of fact.
The issues of temperament and adherence to precedent played out through Vally’s defence of his courtroom conduct and his legal reasoning. He responded to past comments about being “rude” by explaining that he must use a “firm hand” when senior counsel “talk down at you,” arguing that maintaining order is often mistaken for disrespect. The one issue that likely affected his recommendation was the perception of a lack of “humility” regarding his overturned record and the accuracy of his submissions. His failure to provide factually backed answers about his reported judgments likely reinforced concerns about his preparation for the country’s highest court.
April 2021 Interview:
April 2021 Interview Synopsis:
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) did give the impression that Gauteng High Court Judge Bashier Vally’s nomination for appointment by President Cyril Ramaphosa may have had less to do with who he was, but rather, much more to do with who the candidates not recommended were.
The Constitution obliges the JSC to recommend three more candidates than there are vacancies at the country’s highest court and the commission had resolved to send five names for the two vacancies to Ramaphosa.
Early on in his interview Vally dealt with a complaint from the General Council of the Bar which claimed that he sometimes demonstrated “an unwillingness to deal with the substance of matters” leading to various postponements until the case was heard by another judge.
Vally said he was “very disappointed” by the adverse comments and that without context or examples it was difficult for him to respond to them. He said his judge president had never raised his purposefully postponing cases so as to avoid hearing them and suggested there may be some ill feeling towards him by advocates because he was “tough in court” and that he ran an “intellectually challenging” ship.
When asked by Justice Minister Ronald Lamola whether the case in which he had denied former Zimbabwean first lady Grace Mugabe diplomatic immunity had been a “polycentric issue” to which he had not given due regard to the separation of powers, Vally said he didn’t think it was and “I don’t believe I was stepping on the shoes of the executive”.
Commissioner Narend Singh noted that Vally had never acted at the Constitutional Court. Vally considered this “fair comment”, stating that while he had not been given the opportunity to act at either the Supreme Court of Appeal or the Constitutional Court, which he found “unfortunate”, this was not of his choosing and he was mindful of his age and the fact that if he waited for an invitation to act, which never come, he could miss out on an opportunity for permanent appointment.
On dissenting judgments, Vally said these were “important” because the judge’s oath of office demanded that they “carry out their duties without fear, favour or prejudice and that they apply themselves” accordingly so as to “celebrate different ideas”.
“Dissenting is absolutely essential to the development of our law… We must sit in conscience,” he said.
Section 174(2) of the Constitution states that “the need for the judiciary to broadly reflect the racial and gender composition of South Africa must be considered when judicial officers are appointed.”
On the observation that the Constitutional Court had no white judges or ones of Indian descent and that there was a “vulgarisation” of Section 174(2) by commentators who suggested that appointments should address this, Vally said that may be unnecessary and that the section should not be read “in isolation”.
“We don’t have to do it because we have to,” he said, pointing out that there had been no judge of Indian descent since Justice Zac Yacoob’s retirement in 2013.
“To me that didn’t matter and the court was never impoverished,” said Vally who did, however, warn against making the assumption that “one [race] group has more knowledge” than any other.
April 2018 Interview:
April 2018 Interview Synopsis:
If the emotionally charged exchanges between South Gauteng High Court Judge Bashier Vally and Competition Appeal Court (CAC) Judge President Dennis Davis are an indication of their apparently normal relationship — which is how the former described it — then the acrimonious divorce film, Kramer v Kramer, needs to be rethought of as a flick about happy, functional families.
When it was Davis’ turn to question Vally the interview soon descended into an unedifying series of bickering, interruptions, allusions to some previous disagreements over cases they may have heard together, and shout downs. At one point Vally accused Davis of acting immaturely in the interview: “You sometimes distract me with your facial expressions,” he said when trying to answer a question.
Davis asked Vally questions about the legal framework that governs the court, giving the impression of intending to show him up for a possible lack of knowledge. At times, Vally did appear to flail around for answers about relevant legislation and proposed amendments to the Competition Act, which is set to go before parliament.
Noting that the “only time we have minority judgments” at the court was when Vally was adjudicating there, Davis then quizzed him on the necessity for collegiality at the court. Vally responded by saying that he had always argued his points and “put forward my arguments and judgments for the world to see” on points of law, and not to appear personally contrarian.
“Collegiality cannot translate into concurrence,” he chided Davis. Vally then accused Davis of not being ready to accept a “diversity of ideas” while preferring “tin soldiers” all drumming to the same beat, the kind of hegemony which would “make everybody into a Nazi” at his court. Davis shot back that no-one would consider the various Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court judges who had worked at the CAC of being mindless Nazis.
Vally then flipped the tables on Davis, asking him whether the questions about collegiality were asked so as to undermine his candidacy. “If that was done to jeopardise my position then there is a serious problem,” he thundered.
When Vally described the proposed amendments to the Competition Act as recognising, and aiming to address, a “lacuna” in the manner in which oversight of corporate activity could be administered, Davis pressed him on this.
Vally said the amendments recognised the racialised concentration of economic activity and wealth in South Africa and sought to address these.
In spite of their fiery exchanges Vally told the commission that he hoped “we don’t suggest we have a turbulent relationship” because the “contrary” was apparently true.
The debate continued unabated until other commissioners finally got a chance to ask Vally questions which dealt more closely with the technical aspects of this area of law, the influence that economic experts had in these courts, his approach to cases relating to predatory pricing and how SA competition legislation compared to other countries.
Vally was recommended for appointment by the JSC which suggests that the Competition Appeal Court may become as interesting to watch as parliament was during former president Jacob Zuma’s corrupted tenure.
October 2016 Interview:
October 2016 Interview synopsis:
Judge Bashier Vally has a lugubrious demeanour, like a cartoon character whose pessimism ensures a dark cloud constantly hanging over his head.
So when the South Gauteng high court judge bemoaned his having been called to serve only one acting stint at the Competition Appeal Court his manner — and the repetition of his woe-begone experience — may have spurred on the members of the Judicial Service Commission to take him to task for using the interview forum to “air grievances”.
Commissioner Mathole Motshekga wondered why he was approaching the interview as an “opportunity for lamenting” — a sense that appeared to shared by several of the commissioners. This despite Vally going to great lengths to state that he was “not complaining”.
The appointment of acting judges has long been a murky process with the criteria used to make these appointments unclear and still informal.
A point that Vally raised during his interview, pointing to the fact that “one never knows how these decisions are made” and stressing that, especially for specialist legal fields and courts, “if you don’t give people an opportunity, you don’t develop their skills”.
Advocate Lindi Nkosi-Thomas asked Vally to suggest ways to enhance the process of appointing judges and he stated that “improv[ing] transparency” was essential. Vally, who was not appointed to any of the two vacancies at the court had the longest interview at 29 minutes.