Capacity: Judge
First Appointed as a Judge: May 2014 (KwaZulu-Natal Division, High Court)
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Indian
Date of Birth: May 1963
Qualifications: BA(Law) (1983), LLB (1985)(UKZN) LLM (1989)(New York University)
Key Judgments:
- MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v N H obo A (513/2021) [2022] ZASCA 181 (15 December 2022)
- Siyangena Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa and Others (487/2021) [2022] ZASCA 149 (1 November 2022)
- Mzansi Fire and Security (Pty) Ltd v Durban University of Technology and Others (D 1464/2020) [2022] ZAKZDHC 20 (3 March 2022)
- Jerrier v Outsurance Insurance Company Limited (AR 4160/2010) [2015] ZAKZPHC 34; 2015 (5) SA 433 (KZP); [2015] 3 All SA 701 (KZP) (7 July 2015)
Candidate Bio (Updated September 2024)
Judge Mahendra Ramasamy Chetty is a judge of the KwaZulu-Natal High Court.
Judge Chetty’s legal career began in Athlone, Cape Town where he completed his articles from 1986 to 1988 at Wilkinson Joshua Gihwala & Abercrombie Inc, a firm that would later become Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr through a series of mergers. In 1990, Chetty began practicing as an attorney at the Legal Resources Centre where he would remain until 2014. From 1999 until his departure, he would serve as the Regional Director of the Durban office.
In the time before joining the Legal Resource Centre, Judge Chetty completed an LLM specialising in labour law and human rights law at New York University. Chetty obtained his BA Law and LLB from the University of Durban-Westville in 1983 and 1985, respectively.
Chetty’s interest in human rights and public interest law began to feature more prominently in his legal career. He presented at a conference on AIDS and the law which would later manifest in a published piece in the South African Journal of Human Rights in 1993. In Human Rights, Access to Health Care and AIDS Chetty comments on the implications of discrimination in AIDS-related health care. Chetty also wrote for the ESR Review, his paper entitled: The applicability of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act: Ndlovu v Ngcobo and Bekker & Bosch v Jika Supreme Court of Appeal.
Chetty, from 1995 to 2010, worked as a mediator and arbitrator with the Independent Mediation Service of South Africa (IMSSA), later know as Tokiso. Building on his years of experience in legal practice, Chetty was admitted as a judge of the High Court in the KwaZulu-Natal Division in 2014. During his 10 years of experience as a judge, Chetty has heard various matters.
Judge Chetty has also acted in the SCA. In MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v N H obo A, the respondent, as mother and natural guardian of her child, sued the appellant for damages, including an amount for emotional shock, trauma and pain and suffering, alleging that her child had developed cerebral palsy as a result of the negligence of hospital staff at St Barnabas Hospital, Libode. The issue that fell to be decided by Chetty on appeal from the High Court was whether the respondent’s claim in her personal capacity – that which related to damages for emotional shock – had prescribed.
Chetty pointed to section 12(3) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 which provides that a debt is due when the creditor has knowledge of the identity of the debtor and of the facts from which the debt arises. The appellant contended that these conditions had been met when the respondent was discharged from the hospital, on 18 May 2012, as she was aware that the birth had presented some peculiarities such as a difficult labour and her child’s lack of crying. However, the respondent was only informed by her attorney that her child’s cerebral palsy was caused by the negligence of the hospital staff in 2018. which is when Chetty found the prescription period began. Chetty concluded that the appellant’s contention would:
Require us to hold that a party with no knowledge of medicine, no access to her hospital records, limited schooling and resident in a rural area of the country, would be expected to have knowledge of sufficient facts to institute an action for damages within the prescribed periods.
Judge Chetty dismissed the appeal.
In Siyangena Technologies v PRASA, the SCA heard an appeal from the High Court relating to impugned contracts between the appellant and respondent. Various infrastructural improvements were undertaken in preparation for the 2010 FIFA World Cup – relevant to the matter at hand was the upgrading of train stations. Siyangena Technologies was awarded a contract by the respondent, a state organ, to undertake such upgrades and development of the security systems of the train stations. The Pretoria Division of the Gauteng High Court found that the awarding of the contract to Siyangena Technologies was fraught with procedural irregularities and had not conformed with the procurement process, both in the initial and subsequent contracts. The procedural irregularities and budgetary impropriety amounted to the existence of corruption, according to the High Court, which concluded that Siyangena Technologies had been complicit, alternatively involved in the corruption relating to the impugned contracts.
The High Court ordered that an independent engineer value the work completed by Siyangena Technologies in the completion of the contracts with PRASA. Siyangena Technologies did not dispute the finding of the High Court on the declaration of invalidity of the contracts but did dispute the relief, contending that such a declaration should not divest it of its rights. This was the main issue the SCA was called upon to deal with, where Chetty confirmed the conclusion of the High Court that Siyangena Technologies had been complicit to the corruption and impropriety. Chetty asserted that it is “inconsistent with notions of justice and equity that [Siyangena] should be allowed to profit from the unlawful procurement contracts.” Siyangena Technologies’ appeal failed.
With his human rights focus and 10 years of judicial experience at the High Court, will this instill confidence in the JSC that Chetty is ready for the SCA?
October 2024 SCA Interview:
October 2024 SCA Interview Synopsis:
Judge Chetty came before the JSC for the first time in ten years since being appointed to the KwaZulu-Natal High Court in 2014. Despite his break from coming before the Commission it was evident from the lines of questioning and comments made that he was a well-respected Judge, with one of these being a comment from Deputy President Zondi and Commissioner Mangena complementing him on his judgment writing. His calm demeanor throughout his interview aided this perception.
Despite having previous health issues, when asked by CJ Maya if they have persisted he responded; “I’ve taken up cycling, I have done about 11 500km in the last year” comforting CJ Maya that they will not impact his judicial duties.
With a background in human rights law, commissioner Lekganyane asked him to elaborate on his experience of access to justice of the vulnerable part of society and how the South African Law has served these people. His question was prefaced on the view often taken that the law in South Africa is there to serve the rich. Chetty noted that from the bench you still see inequalities so it is important to be alert to inequalities regarding representation of poor and marginalized groups. He explained that there are various ways to make their voices heard, one of these being the manner in which eviction matters are approached. He shared that issues of evictions should be determined by taking all relevant circumstances into regard and avoid a mechanical approach to the issue.
Several questions were asked in relation to the recent ANC v Mk case which concerned trademark law. Commissioner Mtshweni-Tsipane first asked how he ensures his judicial independence and impartiality in high profile cases such as this? Focusing on the law and not on external pressures was his succinct response. Commissioner Mmoiemang then followed asking what his understanding is of the first user principles which come from the common law. Chetty’s answer explained that what Mmoiemang was asking was not argued in the case and it wasn’t relevant for him to respond.
In avoiding judicial overreach Minister Thembi Simelane asked Judge Chetty how “he will maintain a balance between polycentric matters which are in the domain of the executive and the need for the judiciary to discharge it’s responsibilities within the parameters of the constitution?” He provided a very brief response which noted that by and large the courts have showed appropriate deference and that he would act in line with this.
Ultimately, Judge Chetty was unsuccessful.
