Adv Karin Strydom

Capacity: Advocate
Admission as an advocate: March 2010
Gender: Female
Ethnicity: White
Date of Birth: February 1982
Qualifications: LLB (2003) (University of the North West), LLM (2005) (UP)

Key judgments:

Candidate Biography | Updated August 2025:

Advocate Karin Strydom is an advocate of the Pretoria Society of Advocates, and has practiced since 2010.

Before entering legal practice, Strydom obtained her LLB in 2003 from the University of the North West and thereafter her LLM in extractive industry law in 2005 from the University of Pretoria. Whilst completing her LLM she worked as a research assistant and class facilitator in the law faculty at the University of North West. After obtaining her LLM she undertook her articles of clerkship in 2007, and was admitted as an attorney in Pretoria in August 2008. She thereafter worked as a professional assistant until November 2009, when she left her firm to pursue a career as an advocate.

In January 2010 she commenced with pupillage at the Pretoria Society of Advocates, and was duly admitted as an advocate in March 2010. During her early years as an advocate her practice was extremely varied. Due to her experience as an attorney who specialised in delictual law, over time her practice evolved into one of specialisation in personal injury, but she does still deal with matters involving other aspects of law. As an advocate, Strydom has appeared in some significant matters, such as the matter of JM Khoza v The heirs or executor of Emily Raisibe, which dealt with the disjuncture between the legal requirements for ownership of immovable property and how the broader public, especially in rural communities, considers ownership to be validly obtained.

In addition to her normal duties as an advocate, she was one of the applicants chosen to attend the first South African Judicial Education Institute (SAJEI) Aspirant Women Judges programme led by the retired Justice Mojapelo DJP. She has been a member of the South African Medico Legal Association since 2020, a mentor in the South African Chapter of the International Association of Women Judges (SAC-IAWJ) in 2021 and 2025, and a Jessup moot court judge for the International Law Student Association. Strydom was also one of a few members of the Pretoria Society of Advocates to accept the request from the Refugee Appeals Authority of South Africa (RAASA) in February 2025 to assist with the eradication of its backlog of asylum appeals, and she is currently awaiting her letter of appointment in this regard.

Her passion and commitment for furthering social justice and mentoring young legal practitioners is further evidenced by her lecturing of pupils for the Pretoria Society of Advocates, her mentoring of two pupils, and her undertaking to present workshops on delictual damages at the request of legal practitioners in Limpopo and prepare a guidebook thereon.

She has served as an acting judge in the Pretoria high court on 11 separate occasions. She first acted in July 2019, and most recently in December 2024. During this time she has delivered 40 written judgments. In Body Corporate of Old Trafford v Muronzi, the applicant had applied for a final sequestration based on a nulla bona return on a judgment debt for unpaid levies due to the body corporate. Strydom was tasked with determining whether the requirements of section 12(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act were met and whether the possible infringement on Muronzi’s constitutional right to adequate housing by ordering the sequestration constituted a special circumstance that warranted her exercising her statutory discretion to refuse the application in terms of section 12(1)(a). In refusing the application for final sequestration, she noted that granting the application would infringe on rights enshrined in section 26 of the Constitution as the property involved was the respondent’s primary residence, and this constituted a special circumstance to be taken into consideration in exercising her discretion. Her judgment emphasised the important role that public policy plays in all aspects of the law, and that even though sequestration is a legitimate form of execution it could not justify the removal of a person’s primary residence, particularly where the judgment debt involved is less than R50 000.00.

In another significant judgment, in the matter of S v Diswane, Strydom had to determine whether a magistrate’s mero motu recusal during a part-heard criminal trial rendered the proceedings a nullity. In coming to her determination, her research revealed that South African courts had already authoritatively held that the recusal of a magistrate after the plea and evidence stage, but before conviction, rendered the prior proceedings a nullity. She set out the authoritative case law concisely and simply, and held that a magistrate’s recusal rendering him absolutely unavailable causes part‑heard proceedings to be a nullity and they are set aside ex lege; no High Court order is required to achieve that outcome.

When she has been called on to sit as an acting judge, she has made every attempt to ensure that justice is done, and she has consistently delivered well-written and timeous judgments. This, in addition to her contributions to the legal field as an advocate should stand her in good stead for a permanent appointment to the bench.

October 2025 Interview:

The Judicial Service Commission interviewed candidates for eight vacancies in the Gauteng Division of the High Court. Following deliberations, the Commission had resolved not to recommend Advocate Karin Strydom for the position.

Advocate Karin Strydom’s interview was unsuccessful.

Enter your keyword