On 23 July 2026, a Full Court of the Gauteng Division, Pretoria delivered judgment in the challenge to the Gauteng Judge President’s directive introducing mandatory mediation as a prerequisite for the enrolment of civil matters for trial.

The challenge was brought by the Personal Injury Plaintiff Lawyers’ Association (PIPLA), individual applicants and, following its joinder, the Law Society of South Africa (LSSA). The applicants argued that the Directive exceeded the Judge President’s powers under section 173 of the Constitution and that making mediation a condition for trial enrolment could impede the constitutional right of access to courts, particularly for indigent litigants.

Importantly, the applicants were not challenging mediation itself. Their objection concerned its compulsory nature and its operation as a precondition to obtaining a trial date.

The Court identified significant substantive questions raised by the challenge, including whether the Judge President has the power under section 173 of the Constitution to impose mandatory mediation; whether the Directive effectively creates an additional precondition to adjudication; and whether this is compatible with the rights of access to courts and equal protection and benefit of the law.

However, none of these questions was ultimately decided.

The case failed because the applicants had instituted proceedings against the Judge President without first obtaining the consent of the Chief Justice as required by section 47(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. The applicants sought consent only after the application had already been launched.

The Court held that the requirement to obtain consent before proceedings are instituted is jurisdictional and peremptory. Failure to comply renders the proceedings a nullity from the outset and cannot subsequently be cured by obtaining consent, condonation or correspondence from the Chief Justice.

The Court was also critical of the applicants’ subsequent letter requesting consent. It found that the letter created the impression that the application had not yet been launched when, in fact, it had already been issued. The Court regarded this as a failure to make a full and candid disclosure of the relevant facts.

There were nevertheless two noteworthy findings favourable to the applicants. The Court held that the applicants had standing to challenge the Directive, because it directly regulates how legal practitioners conduct litigation and affects both practitioners and the litigants they represent. It also permitted the LSSA to join the proceedings, recognising its direct and substantial interest in issues concerning access to courts, the professional independence of legal practitioners and the administration of justice.

The application was consequently dismissed as a nullity, with the applicants ordered to pay the respondents’ costs, including the costs of two counsel where employed.

Why the judgment matters for mediation

Perhaps the most significant takeaway is what the judgment does not decide. The Full Court has not declared mandatory mediation lawful or unlawful, nor has it determined whether the Gauteng Directive falls within the Judge President’s constitutional powers.

The substantive debate therefore remains unresolved: can participation in mediation legitimately be made a compulsory gateway to trial enrolment, particularly where the practical cost or availability of mediation may affect access to justice?

For mediators and legal practitioners, the judgment means that the Gauteng mandatory mediation framework has survived this particular challenge because of a procedural defect in the litigation, rather than because the Court has endorsed its constitutional validity.