Judges Matter -

Enter your keyword

Judge Nambitha Dambuza-Mayosi

  • Home
  • Judge Nambitha Dambuza-Mayosi
Judge N Dambuza_3600

Capacity: Judge
First appointed as a judge: December 2005
Further appointments: Competition Appeals Court (2010)
Supreme Court of Appeal (2015)
Gender: Female
Ethnicity: African
Date of Birth: October 1964
Qualifications: B.Proc (1987)(UKZN), LLB(1989)(UKZN), LLM  (1990)(Tulane University, New Orleans, USA)

Key judgments:

Candidate Bio | Updated September 2025:

Judge Nambitha Dambuza-Mayosi is a Judge at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

Judge Dambuza-Mayosi has an impressive legal career behind her, both in practice and on the bench. Soon after completing her Articles of Clerkship, she opened her own law firms where she practised from 1992 to 2004. It was in 2003 when Dambuza-Mayosi got her first taste of judicial office. She acted at the Eastern Cape High Court between 2003 and 2005, and was subsequently appointed in December 2005. Since joining the judiciary she has gained vast experience from being appointed a Judge of the Competition Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, but also gaining 12 months of acting experience at the Constitutional Court.

In 2011, as a judge of the Eastern Cape High Court, Dambuza-Mayosi wrote a judgment in State v Mugridge which established the principle that consent to sexual intercourse that is secured through grooming a young child is not a valid defence to a charge of rape. This was later confirmed by the SCA.

At the SCA, she wrote a judgment in Member of Executive Council for Education, Gauteng and Another v Governing Bodies for South African Schools holding that the powers of public schools governing bodies to determine a school’s capacity and admission policy. She held that these powers are not absolute, she stated that the education department exercise the ultimate control capacity but must be exercised reasonably.

Another notable judgment written by Dambuza-Mayosi is the matter of National Student Financial Aid Schemen (NSFAS) v Moloi. In this matter she had to consider the decision by the Minister of Higher Education and Training to discontinue the funding of certain university qualifications which were regarded as second qualifications.  At the start of the 2021 university academic year NSFAS revised and amended the guidelines that were in place at the end of the 2020 academic year. In terms of those guidelines, postgraduate LLB was a funded degree under the bursary scheme. In revising the eligibility criteria NSFAS excluded the LLB and other postgraduate degrees from the bursary scheme funding.

In determining the new eligibility criteria NSFAS acted in consultation with the Minister as mandated and empowered to do so in terms of section 4(b) of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme Act 56 of 1999. The Court upheld the appeal by NSFAS and the Minister, finding that the revision of the eligibility criteria was an exercise of executive powers. Dambuza-Mayosi further held that the Minister and NSAFAS had exercised their powers under section 4(b) of the NSFAS Act rationally, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred under the Act and reasonably given the economic constraints prevailing at the time. This judgment was notable because she had to consider whether the minister’s decision was an exercise of executive action which is excluded by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act or administrative action which is covered by the act. She also explored whether the distinction between executive action and administrative action still finds relevance in our law.

Again, in the field of administrative law, she wrote the judgment in South African National Parks v MTO Forestry. She invoked the principle that previous conduct by a public body in engaging communities through public participation prior to implementing plans relating to a public resource, can be a proper basis for legitimate expectation of consultation regarding subsequent implementations in respect of that resource.

In Steenhuisen and Another v Van Rooyen and Others she had to consider whether the minister had misled parliament and violated the Constitution and the Executive Ethics Code when answering a question put to him during a parliamentary session. By unpacking the purpose and importance of the parliamentary question and answer process in ensuring accountability and openness in a democracy. Due to the vagueness or convoluted nature of the question, she found that a complaint of misleading parliament could not be sustained.

Outside her formal role as a jurist, the 61 year old has also been active in civil society. She is currently a board member of The Global Institute on the Environment and a member of the International Association of Women Judges. She also sits on several Councils and Boards, Dambuza-Mayosi is the Board Chairperson for the Rule Board for the Courts of Law, the Chairperson of Governing Council at the Nelson Mandela University, a council member of SAJEI and a visiting professor at Rhodes University’s law faculty.

Dambuza-Mayosi appears to have a enchantment for academia as she has served as part-time lecturer at the Unversity of Fort Hare (2001-2003) and at the School of Legal Practice in East London during the same period. In tandem with this, she published an article titled Judicial Social Context Education in South Africa which explores the value of social context education in the judiciary.

A concerning factor, however, is the outstanding judgments which are still in Dambuza-Mayosi’s inbox. She has 4 judgments pending from 2023 and two others from last year. This is undesirable in light of the increased workload she would be expected to brave should she be appointment to the apex court, the JSC will almost certainly question the reasons behind these outstanding judgments.

October 2025 JSC Interview

After deliberations, the JSC will advise President Ramaphosa to consider Judge Nambitha Dambuza as one of the possible two candidates for appointment to the Constitutional Court.