Capacity: Judge
First appointed as a judge: August 2022 (Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha)
Previous appointments: Regional Court President, North West (November 2018), Regional Magistrate, KwaZulu-Natal (October 2013)
Gender: Female
Ethnicity: African
Date of Birth: November 1972
Qualifications: BA (Law) (1996) (UWC), LLB (2007) (UWC)
Key Judgments
- Dudaka v Minister of Police (3571/2022) [2025] ZAECMHC 10 (27 February 2025)
- Gwebindlala v President of the Republic of South Africa [2024] ZAECMHC 90; [2024] 4 All SA 810 (ECM)
- Zilwa and Another v South African Legal Practice Council (7367/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 870
- Molefe v Minister of Police (433/2019) [2019] ZANWHC (22 October 2020)
Candidate Biography | Updated September 2026:
Judge Vuyokazi Pamella Noncembu is a Judge in the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, seated in Gqeberha.
Judge Noncembu was born in the then Port Elizabeth (now Gqeberha) in 1972. She obtained her BA Law and LLB from the University of the Western Cape in 1996 and 2007, respectively. Noncembu started her legal career as a prosecutor in eQonce (King William’s Town) in 1999. She prosecuted matters ranging from petty crimes and family-related crimes to traffic crimes. She later became a regional prosecutor, where her scope was expanded to include dealing with sexual offences, particularly those involving child witnesses. This is probably where her interest in child justice was evoked and led her to be part of the first cohort to receive training on the Child Justice Act from the Centre for Child Law at the University of Pretoria.
Noncembu piloted the preliminary inquiry process used when dealing with child offenders before the inception of the Child Justice Act. This ensured that child witnesses still obtained justice, but in a way that protected them. True to her passion and the usefulness of her skill set, she would later be involved in the training of magistrates, police and probation officers tasked with dealing with child offenders in terms of the Child Justice Act.
After being appointed as an Additional Magistrate in 2005 and a Control Magistrate in 2008, Noncembu was appointed as a Regional Magistrate in Verulam, KwaZulu-Natal, in 2013, where she adjudicated more serious criminal matters such as murder, public violence and sexual offences. Before being appointed as a Regional Magistrate, Noncembu had been active in the training and mentorship of magistrates in case-flow management and aspects of criminal, family and civil law. She was propelled to the senior position of Regional Court President of the North West province in 2018, where she gained valuable leadership experience.
Prior to her permanent judicial appointment in 2022, Judge Noncembu accumulated extensive experience on the High Court Bench as an Acting Judge across several divisions, including the North West, Gauteng and Eastern Cape High Courts.
Upon returning to her home province and taking up a permanent seat, she wrote one of her most significant judgments, which concerned the contested politics of traditional leadership.
In Gwebindlala v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others, delivered on 5 September 2024, Judge Noncembu dealt with a review concerning the recognition of the AmaBomvana traditional community as a “principal traditional community” under section 2B of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003. The applicant sought, among other relief, recognition of the community and his own recognition as its principal traditional leader.
The judgment addressed several important administrative-law questions. Judge Noncembu upheld a misjoinder objection against the President, the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and the national government, finding that they lacked a direct and substantial interest in the relief sought. She nevertheless granted condonation for the applicant’s delay in launching the review, taking into account the constitutional rights implicated and the absence of prejudice to the respondents.
A central issue was whether the MEC had acted ultra vires by exercising a power that the applicant argued belonged to the Premier. Judge Noncembu rejected this argument, holding that the statutory provisions did not exclude the Premier’s broader constitutional power of delegation under section 238 of the Constitution. Since the Premier had formally delegated the power to the MEC in June 2014, the MEC had authority to determine the application.
The court also considered the absence of a Rule 53 record. Although recognising the importance of the record in facilitating judicial review, Noncembu held that its absence did not automatically invalidate the administrative decision where the respondents’ affidavits provided evidence of the consultation and decision-making process. She ultimately found that the applicant had failed to establish the statutory jurisdictional facts required for recognition. Applying Endumeni to the interpretation of the applicable legislation and Plascon-Evans to disputed facts, she dismissed the review with costs.
The judgment illustrates a structured approach to public-law litigation, with distinct consideration given to procedural objections, executive authority, the evidentiary function of Rule 53 and the substantive statutory requirements governing traditional leadership.
In Molefe v Minister of Police, decided in October 2020 while Noncembu was acting in the North West High Court, she determined the quantum of damages arising from an unlawful arrest and approximately 36 hours of detention.
The Minister of Police had conceded liability, leaving the court to determine appropriate compensation. Judge Noncembu approached the claim through the constitutional protection of liberty and dignity under section 12(1)(a) of the Constitution. While recognising the seriousness of the infringement, she emphasised that damages for iniuria are intended to provide solace rather than enrichment and that courts must exercise restraint when making awards against the public purse. She also carefully scrutinised the plaintiff’s evidence concerning the alleged psychological and reputational consequences of the arrest, rejecting assertions that were unsupported or inherently improbable.
Having considered comparable authorities, she awarded R90,000 for the 36-hour detention. The judgment also addressed the broader institutional consequences of forum selection. Rejecting the argument that the constitutional nature of the claim justified High Court litigation despite the Magistrates’ Court having jurisdiction, Judge Noncembu relied on Nedbank Ltd v Thobejane to emphasise that unnecessary High Court litigation contributes to congestion and undermines access to justice for litigants whose matters genuinely require the attention of the High Court. She consequently awarded costs on the Magistrates’ Court scale.
Finally, in Zilwa and Another v South African Legal Practice Council, Judge Noncembu considered an application for leave to appeal following the striking-off of a legal practitioner for serious trust-account irregularities and professional misconduct. The judgment focused on the heightened threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. Relying on Mont Chevaux Trust v Goosen, Noncembu emphasised that an applicant must demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion, rather than merely that it might do so.
Applying that test, she considered the practitioner’s own admissions concerning repeated trust-account deficits, borrowing from trust creditors and inadequate management of the firm’s trust account. She regarded this conduct as a serious abuse of the practitioner’s position of trust. She also rejected the argument that the High Court was required to await a formal Legal Practice Council disciplinary process, reaffirming the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to discipline legal practitioners and protect the public. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
The judgment demonstrates Noncembu’s emphasis on both the proper application of appellate standards and the protective purpose of professional discipline. Taken together, these judgments illustrate the breadth of Judge Noncembu’s judicial experience.
With four years as a permanent Judge behind her, and experience spanning criminal, civil, administrative and customary law, Noncembu brings a broad judicial base to the contest for Deputy Judge President. The JSC will want to hear how she would translate that breadth of experience, together with her years of leadership in the North West magistracy, into the role of Deputy Judge President.
October 2026 JSC Interview
Following the interviews and deliberations for Deputy Judge President of the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court held on 6 October 2026, none of the candidates achieved the required majority of 13 votes. The JSC will therefore deliberate further before nominating candidates. Read more here.
April 2022 JSC Interview
Ms Vuyokazi Pamella Noncembu’s April 2022 interview for a position on the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court (Gqeberha) was successful. She was nominated for appointment.