Judges Matter -

Enter your keyword

Ms Mas-udah Pangarker

  • Home
  • Ms Mas-udah Pangarker
Ms Pangarker

Capacity: Regional Magistrate
First Appointed as a Regional Magistrate: March 2015 (Bellville Regional Court)
Gender: Female
Ethnicity: Indian
Date of Birth: April 1971
Qualifications: BA (1992) (UCT), LLB (1995) (UWC)

Key Judgments:

Candidate Biography (Updated September 2024)

Ms Mas-udah Pangarker is a regional magistrate of the Bellville Regional Court. Prior to entering the magistracy, Ms Pangarker completed her articles of clerkship at the Legal Aid Clinic at UCT in 1997, and was admitted as an attorney of the High Court in May 1997. She subsequently commenced private practice, as M Pangarker Attorney, from June 1997 to January 2002, during which time her practice revolved primarily around criminal and civil litigation in the lower courts, deceased estates, and family law.

Following her time in private practice, she was appointed permanently as an additional magistrate in the Wynberg District Court in May 2002, and she held this position until November 2009. She was subsequently appointed as an acting regional magistrate, first in the Mitchells Plain Regional Court, from August 2010 to July 2011, and thereafter in the Cape Town Regional Court from August 2011 to February 2015. She was appointed permanently as a regional magistrate of the Bellville Regional Court in August 2016, which position she still holds.

In addition to her duties as a regional magistrate, Ms Pangarker made important contributions to the publication of the ‘Bench Bbook on Civil Adjudication for Regional Magistrates’, published in 2016. She has also been a mentor, facilitator and presenter of the Aspirant Regional Magistrates and Civil Enlistment course under the auspices of the South African Judicial Education Institute (SAJEI). Notably, she was a member of Shuraya Bafazi, a Muslim personal law working group of attorneys which provided free legal advice mainly to Muslim women on their rights in terms of Shariah and South African law.

She has served as an acting judge of the Western Cape Division of the High Court on various occasions, during 2021, 2023, and 2024, most recently until 21 June 2024. During her time as an acting judge, Ms Pangarker has delivered numerous judgments, all of high calibre, and has prided herself on delivering these judgments timeously. It appears that 4 of her judgments have been taken on appeal, with 3 being dismissed, and 1 lapsing.

In S v Manise, Pangarker (Henney J concurring) dealt with the procedural and substantive requirements for plea and sentencing agreements under section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act. She dealt with the impact of the failure of parties and the presiding Magistrate to comply with the provisions of section 105A on the conviction and sentencing of the accused. In a well-reasoned judgment, she explained why the irregularities did not vitiate the conviction, but that the sentence would need to be revisited.

In Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa NPC v Tubestone (Pty) Ltd, Pangarker had to address the principles of administrative law which govern the effectiveness of administrative decisions which have not been set aside (in the case subordinate legislation), and the circumstances in which parties may raise the alleged invalidity of such action collaterally as a defence or ground of opposition. She demonstrated a good knowledge of the recent case law dealing with collateral challenges and the applicability of the ‘Oudekraal’ principle. A full bench of the Western Cape Division of the High Court dismissed an appeal of her judgment.

The case of Trustees for the time being of the Bymyam Trust v Butcher Shop and Grill CC was a commercial matter concerning whether a lessee could claim a remittal of rental due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In this matter Pangarker carefully considered the contractual relationships between the parties in finding that the lessee – who had sublet the premises to a related entity – could not claim remittal of rental while not being in occupation of the property, and was still liable to pay rental. An appeal of this matter was dismissed by the SCA.

In Department of Environmental Affairs, Forestry and Fisheries v B Xulu & Partners Incorporated, Pangarker held an attorney and his firm in contempt of six orders of the Western Cape Division of the High Court. She summarised and applied the principles governing contempt of court, and emphasised that court orders are binding and that it would lead to chaos should parties be entitled to decide what orders to comply with. She also emphasised that the sanction for contempt “should not have as its focus, punishment, but rather to bring the contemnor to his/its senses, protect the rule of law and restore and vindicate the dignity of the Court” (para 70).

As an acting judge, as well as a regional magistrate, Ms Pangarker has shown that she can adjudicate complex matters, and deliver well-written and well-reasoned judgments. The fact that none of her judgments have been successfully appealed is testament to her legal ability, and her capacity as a judicial officer. She has continued to act as a judge since her October 2022 interview.

October 2024 Interview:

October 2022 Interview:

October 2022 Interview Synopsis:

In an interview that lasted a little over an hour, Ms Mas-udah Pangarker was quizzed on what she would bring to the bench. In response, she stated that she would bring experience, independence, impartiality, and dedication to being fair to all litigants. Further, she stated that she has played a huge role in judicial education in the Western Cape, particularly in the regional courts, which experience assisted her in contributing to transformation in the lower courts of the judiciary.

She was further asked about various matters that she was involved in, particularly her matter in the SCA wherein she was the appellant, being Pangarker N.O. v Botha 2015 (1) SA 503 (SCA). She noted that in this matter, the High Court had set aside a decision she had made in divorce proceedings, on the basis that her failure mero motu to postpone the proceedings at the request of one of the parties, was a gross irregularity. On appeal to the SCA, the SCA firmly disagreed with the High Court’s findings, criticising the High Court and holding that it Pangarker had no basis on the facts before her to postpone the proceedings, and indeed it was incomprehensible how it could be said that she had committed a gross irregularity under the circumstances.

Her interview for a position as a judge of the Western Cape Division of the High Court was unsuccessful.