Judges Matter -

Enter your keyword

Mr Khashane La Mmapowana Manamela

  • Home
  • Mr Khashane La Mmapowana Manamela
Mr K L M Manamela_9273

Capacity: Attorney
Admission as an attorney: July 1996
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Black
Date of Birth: November 1970
Qualifications: BA Law (1992) (University of Venda) LLB (1994) Mercantile Law LLM (2003) Pg. Dip in Forensic & Investigative Accounting (2004) (UP), Tax LLM (1999) (Wits), MBL (2008) (UNISA)

Key judgments:

 

Candidate Biography | Updated August 2025:

Mr Khashane Manamela is an admitted attorney, currently practicing as a director of Manamela Inc.

He was admitted as an attorney in July 1996, having completed his articles of clerkship at Couzyn Hertzog & Horak Inc in February 1996, before taking on a position as an assistant state attorney from March 1996 to March 1997. Following his stint with the State Attorney, he moved back into corporate practice until July 1998, at which point he established his own law firm, where he has practiced as a director ever since.

During his almost 30 years in the legal industry, he has served as an acting judge in both the Johannesburg and Pretoria high courts, for a total period of 98 weeks, with his first acting stint taking place in 2013, and his most recent taking place in the second term of 2025. During this time he has delivered some significant judgments, with approximately 67 judgments from the Pretoria high court and 12 from the Johannesburg high court reported on LawLibrary.

He started his strong relationship with academia when he completed his BA Law degree from the University of Venda in 1992, thereafter he obtained his LLB from UP in 1994, an LLM in tax law from Wits in 1999, and an LLM in mercantile law from UP in 2003. In addition thereto, he also obtained a postgraduate diploma in forensic and investigative accounting from UP in 2004, an MBL from UNISA in 2008 and a certificate in business rescue practice from UNISA in 2013. He is currently reading for his LLD at UNISA.

In addition to his normal duties, he has been a member of the Black Lawyers’ Association since 2000, and secretary general of the Sekaba Alumni Association since 2021. He has been an instructor for LEAD since 2000, and has served as a member of the Companies Tribunal from 2012 to 2022. He is also a member of the disciplinary committee of the HPCSA. As a director of his own law firm, he views his training of candidate and junior attorneys as some of his most significant contributions to the law and the pursuit of justice in South Africa. As an attorney with rights of appearance at the high court, he has appeared in some significant matters, mainly dealing with civil litigation and administrative and constitutional law.

As an acting judge, Manamela has presided over some important matters, and has a history of delivering timeous and well-written judgments. In South African Tourism Board v Swift Thinking (Pty) Ltd; South African Tourism Board v Letsema Consulting and Advisory (Pty) Ltd, the applicant, being the South African Tourism Board, had reviewed and challenged 2 sets of appointments and sought declarations that the appointments were unlawful on the basis that they were made at the instigation of the then CEO without competitive tendering. Manamela was tasked with determining, among other things, whether the procurement appointments complied with section 217 of the Constitution, the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and the applicant’s own supply chain management policy. In holding that the appointments breached section 17 of the Constitution, the PFMA and the policy, Manamela noted that there was no competitive process without any valid emergency or sole-supplier justification. He also entertained the applicant’s decision to self-review, applying the delay test set out in Khumalo to find that the delay was reasonable. Manamela further emphasised that self-reviews required disclosure of the decision record and criticised the applicant for withholding the relevant forensic report, stating that there was no justification for an applicant (particularly an organ of state) to withhold the decision record and that a full record is necessary for fair adjudication. Manamela held that complete restitution would not be just and equitable in the instances, rather the appropriate remedy was to require a detailed breakdown of reasonable expenses so that the court could order repayment of profits only.

In Affirm Manufacturing Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Rototank v Dasel Properties (Pty) Ltd, Manamela was faced with an application for a mandament van spolie to restore possession of advertising space, structures and related fixtures after Dasel Properties had removed Rototank’s signs and props. The applicant alleged it had occupied the site under a lease concluded with the respondent’s agent and was unlawfully dispossessed in April 2025. The respondent disputed urgency, denied wrongful dispossession, relied on an asserted month’s‑notice cancellation and alleged a transfer of control to a majority‑shareholding third party and replacement by a third party advertiser. Manamela found the matter urgent, admitted the respondent’s late affidavit in the interests of justice, and declined a blanket exclusion of hearsay. On the merits he held that the applicant had been in peaceful and undisturbed possession and that the respondent had not proved lawful cancellation of occupation. The respondent’s contention that restoration was impossible because signage had been destroyed or replaced was rejected, with Manamela stating that destruction of ancillary signage did not defeat restoration of possession of the advertising space and structures. He therefore ordered that the signs and props be restored within 5 days.

Based on Manamela’s time as a director of his own law firm, the roles he has played in training young legal practitioners, and the quantity and quality of his judgments across his numerous acting stints, his experience will stand him in good stead for a position on the bench in the Gauteng division of the high court.

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 to recommend Attorney Khashane La Mmapowana Manamela for the position.

Attorney Khashane La Mmapowana Manamela’s interview was successful.