Capacity: Regional Magistrate
First appointed as a Regional Magistrate: March 2015 (Wynberg Regional Court)
Gender: Female
Ethnicity: Black
Date of Birth: March 1971
Qualifications: B.Iuris (1995) (WSU), LLB (2003) (UWC)
Key Judgments:
- Burt v Additional Magistrate 2023 (1) SACR 527 (WCC)
- M.L.C.B v Master of the High Court [2023] ZAWCHC 172 (26 January 2023)
- Lead Engineering and Projects (Pty) Ltd v SWE Repco SA (Pty) Ltd [2023] ZAWCHC 77 (18 April 2023)
- Du Toit v Farm Film Productions (Pty) Ltd [2023] ZAWCHC 265 (26 October 2023)
- S v Bergman; S v Matume 2023 (1) SACR 533 (WCC)
Candidate Biography (Updated September 2024)
Ms Nontuthuzelo Ralarala is a regional magistrate, currently presiding at Wynberg Regional Court.
She began her legal career in 1997 as a trainee prosecutor under the NPA in Cape Town. In 1998 she was appointed as a prosecutor for the Malmesbury Magistrates’ Court, whereafter she was transferred to Simon’s Town Magistrates’ Court. In 2002 she was appointed as a regional court prosecutor. Thereafter, she assumed the position of a control prosecutor for both the District and Regional Court. She was appointed as a magistrate of the Cape Town Magistrates’ Court in 2005, before being appointed as a regional magistrate in 2013 of the Atlantis Regional Court and subsequently being appointed permanently in 2015, to the Wynberg Regional Court. Further, she has acted as a judge of the Western Cape Division of the High Court for 6 terms, since 2022.
As a regional court prosecutor, Ralarala was instrumental in establishing the Sexual Offences Court within Khayelitsha Magistrates’ Court. In addition to serving as a regional magistrate and acting judge, Ralarala has been an active member of the SAC-IAWJ’s programme, mentoring numerous law students, proving her commitment to the transformation of the legal and judicial space through education and guidance.
As an acting judge, she has delivered numerous judgments, of a high calibre, of which quite a few have been reported. In Burt v Additional Magistrate, the applicant applied for the review of proceedings in a magistrates’ court in which he was found guilty on a charge of theft, after his plea of guilty was accepted. The applicant had been represented by a Legal Aid attorney who made representations, to the senior prosecutor, which were unsuccessful. When the matter came up for trial, the prosecutor threatened the applicant that, if he pleaded not guilty, he would be sentenced to imprisonment. The applicant then decided to plead guilty and was convicted in the absence of his legal representative.
In setting aside the applicant’s conviction and sentence, Ralarala held that the actions of the senior prosecutor were a matter of grave concern, in that he dispensed with the applicant’s right to legal representation when he caused the applicant to engage with the state witness in the absence of his legal representative. Furthermore, the acts of intimidation and threats of imprisonment demonstrated improper behaviour on his part. Such conduct was reprehensible and had to be deprecated, as it had no place in a country based on human dignity, equality and freedom. She emphasised that prosecutors were trained professionals and should be relied upon not to allow matters to proceed under s 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 when that was not appropriate.
She further held that it was highly concerning that the magistrate was satisfied with the prosecutor’s submission that Legal Aid’s mandate had been terminated, without confirming that with the accused or requiring the legal representative to withdraw as attorney of record in open court. She noted that the magistrate should have interrogated the applicant’s appearance without his legal representative, as the record indicated that a Legal Aid representative had appeared on previous occasions and there was no indication that he had at any stage withdrawn. The sloppy and lackadaisical conduct of the magistrate in the matter was highly objectionable and had to be discouraged. As a result, the proceedings were tainted by gross irregularity, on account of which Ralarala set aside the applicant’s conviction and sentence.
In Lead Engineering and Projects (Pty) Ltd v SWE Repco SA (Pty) Ltd, the applicant sought a spoliation order pursuant to being expelled from the project site run by the respondent. Ralarala had to determine whether the dispossession by the respondent was lawful or not. She dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was lawfully dispossessed of the project site and that it was not entitled to the remedy sought because its possession of the project site was based on a contractual right and thus not protected by spoliation. She further found that the applicant did not have a lien over the project site.
October 2024 Interview:
