Capacity: Judge
First appointed as Judge: Gauteng High Court (October 2024)
First Appointed as Magistrate: 1996 (Benoni)
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: African
Date of Birth: February 1958
Qualifications: Dip. Juris (1985), B.Iuris (1991), LLB (1999)(University of Zululand)
Key judgments:
- S v Lebogang Mahlatsi CC152/2016
- S v David Motswadire & Others CC31/2016
- Molai MG v Pule Incorporated Case no 31533/2015
Candidate Bio (Updated September 2024):
Judge Mudunwazi Samuel Makamu Is a judge of the Gauteng Division of the High Court.
Mr Mudunwazi Samuel Makamu is a Magistrate in the Regional Court Division.
Born in the rural village of Giyani, Mr Mudunwazi Samuel Makamu’s legal career started at the age of 22 as a court interpreter, a position he held between 1980 and 1983. While a court interpreter, Makamu was also the clerk of the court, revenue clerk and the clerk responsible for the registration of birth, death and estates.
Between 1984 and 1985 Makamu worked as the clerk responsible for registering and deregistering motor vehicles. While in this position Makamu was appointed as a district public prosecutor and the maintenance officer simultaneously.
Between 1985 and 1988 he was appointed as the regional court prosecutor. While a regional court prosecutor, Makamu commenced his career as an additional magistrate. Between 1996 and 2013 Makamu served as Senior Magistrate and from 2007 to 2010 served as acting Regional Court Magistrate. From 2010 until 2013 Makamu was an aspirant Regional Court Magistrate after which he was permanently appointed to the position of Regional Court Magistrate, a position which he still occupies.
Makamu has acted as a Judge of the High Court for a total of 36 terms from 2016 to 2022. During his acting stints, he presided over various cases including criminal trials, civil trials, full bench appeals, full court appeals, bails appeal, reviews, petitions, admissions and mental patient orders. Makamu’s judgments deal extensively with criminal law.
In S v Lebogang Mahlatsi CC152/2016, Makamu had to determine whether the accused was guilty of premeditated murder. It was alleged that the accused shot and killed his girlfriend’s second boyfriend, the accused being the first boyfriend. The accused testified that he could not remember what happened on the day of the incident. The State had a duty to prove Lebogang’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Makamu found the accused guilty of premeditated murder. In considering Lebogang’s mitigating circumstances Makamu referred to S v Banda and Others 1991 (2) SA 352 (BG) and emphasized that:
“What is necessary is that the court shall consider, and try to balance evenly, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the characteristic of the offender and his circumstances and the impact of the crime on the community, its welfare, and concerns.”
In exercising this balance, Makamu found Lebogang guilty as charged.
In S v David Motswadire and Others CC31/2016 Makamu had to deal with a criminal law matter. In this case, five accused persons were charged with housebreaking with intent to rob and rape. The accused were also charged with robbery with aggravating circumstances and the rape of two adults, a 15-year-old and a 6-year-old. The accused all pleaded not guilty.
Swabs were taken from all the complainants and the J88 medical examination reports were all admitted as correct. Makamu had to determine whether the accused were guilty as charged. Prior to making a decision, but subsequent to outlining evidence, Makamu made a very important comment relating to the handling of the evidence. He noted that the constable in the case:
“[D]id a diligent job of collecting evidence, packaging it and making certain that it was safe guarded until set for analysis. There was a serious attempt by accused 2 and 3 to discredit this handling of evidence and no fault could be found in the manner in which he collected evidence and safeguarded it.”
Based on the testimony of all the witnesses and the evidence presented in court, all the accused were found guilty as charged, except for the first accused. It was found that there was no evidence to show that the first accused participated in the rape of the victims. However, the first accused was found in possession of stolen property which links him to the crimes committed by the other accused persons. Therefore, the first accused was found guilty of robbery with aggravating circumstances.
Makamu’s extensive experience is not only attributable to him having presided over many disputes on the bench, he has actively held other roles as well. Makamu is a founding member of the Judicial Officers Association of South Africa (JOASA) and he remained a member until 2019. He is also serving as the deputy chairperson of the Magistrates Commission and is a member of the appointments committee and ethics committee in the Magistrates Commission.
Makamu holds a Dip. Juris, B.Iuris and LLB all obtained from the University of Zululand and is in the process of completing an LLM in corporate law through the University of Johannesburg.
October 2024 Interview:
October 2024 Interview Synopsis:
Early in his interview Mr Makamu established his judicial experience, explaining that he has 40 years of experience as a magistrate and got to his position by working his way up through the court system. Judge President Tlaletsi, acknowledging his experience asked what his view is on the public sentiment that there is no difference between the work of a judge and a magistrate? Makamu explained that there is a huge difference in the workloads which is because of the higher level of quality expected from High court judges. Tlaletsi further asked if he would be able to dent the backlogs with criminal matters in the high court given his expertise in criminal work? “I will definitely make a huge dent in that aspect” responded Makamu explaining that causes delays in criminal matters is a lack of knowledge and experience in these matters.
The quality of his reasoning and writing of judgments was pointed out by the GCB who sent in comments that they did not believe it was up to par. Makamu defended himself by explaining that he was unaware of these critics, but now that he is aware it is something he will work very hard on. He went on to explain that he has taken advantage of the judgment writing courses that are offered by SAJEI. Makamu pointed out that the quality of the courses offered to the lower courts are not as good as those offered to the superior courts. However, he attended the weekly lectures offered at the Gauteng High Courts during his acting stints which largely assisted in his learning. CJ Maya noted the comment from the GCB that there has been a ‘slight improvement’ since their comments from October 2023.
While being questioned by Judge President Mlambo, the JP asked him to explain why his criminal trial that started in August 2018 only had the judgment handed down in February 2024. Makamu explained that one of the accused was in ill health which caused delays. JP Mlambo probed for him to explain the further delay that was caused by the many applications that were brought during this matter. “When I cough there will be an application, when I sneeze there will be an application” stated Makamu to paint the picture of just how many obstacles were in place to cause delay in this case. Litigants from this matter legally challenged Mr Makamu being interviewed for this position but were unsuccessful.
Mr Makamu was ultimately successful in his interview.
October 2022 Interview:
October 2022 Interview Synopsis:
The DCJ noted early in the interview that Mr Mudunwazi Samuel Makamu had not yet had a judgment overturned on appeal, joking that “your day will come.”
Commissioner Nyambi asked Makamu about his time as a judicial officer during apartheid, and whether there were experiences that stood out. Makamu harkened back to demeaning treatment by some of his white colleagues, reflecting on the ideology that dominated at the time; “comply and complain later.”
Commissioner Steinberg referred to some criticisms raised by the General Council of the Bar of South Africa (GCBSA) that some of Makamu’s judgments have not been well reasoned and at times relied on incorrect assumptions. Steinberg used the case of Molai v Pule Incorporated as an example, inquiring into the source of the legal test used by Makamu to determine the issue of outstanding payments pertaining to a verbal agreement. Makamu conceded that his judgment was flawed, as it was his first civil case heard in his first acting stint, and that if he had the opportunity to rewrite the judgment now he may come to the same conclusion but with more appropriate legal reasoning.
Makamu was asked by Commissioner Notyesi to expound on the meaning of the terms ‘reading in’ and ‘reading down’ in legislative interpretation. Makamu explained that reading in entailed being “able to see the spirit that prevails when that particular act or legislation was being considered” and reading down requires one to “apply your mind to exactly what is clear from that particular legislation.”
Mr Makamu’s interview was ultimately unsuccessful.
