Capacity: Advocate
Admission as an advocate: February 1987
Further appointment as senior counsel: December 2011
Gender: Male
Ethnicity: White
Date of Birth: January 1960
Qualifications: Blc.LLB (1984) (UP)
Key judgments:
- The Prudential Authority of the South African Reserve Bank v Mamphe Daniel Msiza [2023] ZAGPPHC 313; A294/2021 (2 May 2023)
- Endangered Wildlife Trust v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development [2023] ZAGPPHC 163; 1138/2022 (3 March 2023)
- Mthethwa v Minister of Police (11742/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 898 (7 September 2024)
- P K H v V D V J (31736/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 956 (29 August 2025)
- E M K v E M B ; D M v S J S (2023-010767; 2024-094190) [2025] ZAGPPHC 293 (18 March 2025)
Candidate Biography (updated August 2025):
Advocate Petrus Van Niekerk SC is a senior counsel practicing out of the Pretoria Bar. He has been an advocate since 1987, and a senior counsel since 2008.
Van Niekerk attended UP full-time from 1978 to 1980 for his Blc.LLB and thereafter part-time whilst he completed his articles of clerkship between 1982 and 1984. He obtained his Blc.LLB in June 1984 and thereafter became a legal officer for the South African Medical Service until 1986. He was admitted as an advocate in February 1987and joined the Pretoria Bar in March 1987. He was conferred with senior status and took silk in December 2011.
In addition to his practice, he has served on the disciplinary committee of the Pretoria Bar as a pro-forma prosecutor, member and chairman of disciplinary proceeding since 2010. He qualified as an advocacy trainer in 1988 and has participated in the advocacy training programme since. He was appointed as a convenor of the training committee of the Pretoria Bar from 2012 to 2017. Further, he was a co-initiator of the annual trial advocacy course presented by the Pretoria bar to final year LLB students. Notably, he published “A practical Guide to Patrimonial Litigation in Divorce Actions” on LexisNexis in 1998 and is an editor of the publication which is annually updated. This publication has been widely used as a guide to formulating different patrimonial claims in divorce actions, and was cited with approval by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in a 2016 judgment.
As an advocate, he has appeared in some important matters, such as M v M in the SCA, in which the confusion in matrimonial law in relation to the circumstances where a court may go behind the trust form and pierce the corporate veil was clarified.
He has acted as a judge in the Gauteng division of the high court, and has sat in criminal appeals and various civil trials. At the date of his application he does not have any reserved judgments. His first stint as an acting judge took place in October 2012, and his last stint took place across May to June 2025. In total, he has served as an acting judge for 49 weeks and during this time he has delivered numerous judgments of good quality that indicate an astute understanding of complex law.
In the matter of PKH v VDVJ, there was a dispute between divorced parents regarding the implementation of a phased contact regime for their four-year-old daughter. Although a settlement agreement had provided for progressive extensions of the applicant’s (father’s) contact with the child, the respondent (mother) unilaterally curtailed those rights citing her perception of distress in the child during visits and concerns raised by social workers and a therapist. Van Niekerk found the respondent’s unilateral actions in varying a court order unacceptable, but also acknowledged the compelling evidence from third-party professionals that the child was suffering emotional and sensory distress under the previous arrangement, necessitating urgent attention to her best interests. Pending a complete forensic psychological investigation into the child’s needs, he ordered the appointment of a parenting coordinator to work with the child’s therapist to develop an interim visitation schedule focused on the child’s well-being, with minimum contact hours set and fallback times stipulated. Both parties were found equally liable for the costs of this investigation. The costs of these proceedings were reserved for later determination, recognising that final conclusions about parental conduct and the child’s best interests could only properly be reached after receipt of a full forensic report.
In the matter of EMK v EMB; DM v SJS, there were two family-law matters which raised whether alleged customary marriages had been validly concluded and could be declared, dissolved or registered. In the unopposed divorce matter the plaintiff pleaded only that the parties were married according to customary law and annexed a dowry letter; no particulars of the applicable customs or compliance were pleaded or deposed to. In the opposed application the applicant relied on lobola negotiations and post-negotiation cohabitation but failed to identify the specific cultural group or the customs and usages relied on; the Minister of Home Affairs did not oppose but a respondent disputed the marriage. Van Niekerk analysed the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act and authorities, holding that the party asserting a customary marriage bears the onus to plead and adduce corroborative evidence of the living customary law (its content and application) and compliance therewith. He noted that section 4(7) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act required a court investigation before ordering registration. Lobola negotiations alone were insufficient. Applying these principles, he concluded the divorce particulars were deficient and could not support a divorce order, and the declaratory/registration application was dismissed for want of proof.
His active involvement in the training of pupils and advocates at the Pretoria Bar highlights Van Niekerk’s commitment to ensuring that young legal practitioners develop the necessary skills and expertise to succeed in the advocacy field. It is enlightening that he views this as his most significant contribution to the law and the pursuit of justice in South Africa.
Notably, in 1989/1990 he was fined and reprimanded for two minor offences for double briefing by the Pretoria Society of Advocates after he appeared in the unopposed divorce court and urgent court on the same day. As these were minor offences, and due to the fact that he has not repeated this conduct since then, it should not be too heavily construed or used as a red mark on his application for appointment.
In light of the above, and due to his immense experience as a senior counsel, and his commitment to furthering the law in South Africa, Van Niekerk should be optimistic about his chances of being permanently appointed to the bench.
October 2025 Interviews:
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 Advocate Petrus Arnoldus Van Niekerk SC for the position.
Advocate Petrus Arnoldus Van Niekerk SC’s interview was successful.