Government Notice 7648: Has the Concurrent Jurisdiction of High Court Main Seats Been Abolished?

On 2 July 2026, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development published Government Notice 7648 in Government Gazette 54935 (“the notice”), determining the areas of jurisdiction of the main and local seats of certain Divisions of the High Court of South Africa, Limpopo, Gauteng, North West and Mpumalanga Divisions of the High Court of South Africa. Although published only on 2 July 2026, the effective date of this notice is recorded as 1 July 2026.

This notice has led to widespread confusion and debate as to the practical effect of the notice, more particularly whether the main seats’ concurrent jurisdiction over areas allocated to local seats has been abolished, and whether pending proceedings, which are not yet on roll and which would, on that interpretation, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of another seat, should be transferred.

What does the notice say?

The notice assigns identified magisterial districts and sub-districts to the main and local seats of the four affected Divisions: Limpopo, Gauteng, North West and Mpumalanga.

Although the Notice applies to all four Divisions, the consequences of the separate allocations are particularly apparent in Gauteng and Mpumalanga, where Pretoria and Mbombela are the main seats and Johannesburg and Middelburg are the respective local seats.

In Gauteng, for example, Pretoria, as the main seat, is assigned the Tshwane Magisterial District. Johannesburg, as the local seat, is assigned the Ekurhuleni, Johannesburg, Sedibeng and West Rand Magisterial Districts.

In Mpumalanga, Mbombela, as the main seat, is assigned the Ehlanzeni Magisterial District and the Chief Albert Luthuli Sub-District. Middelburg, as the local seat, is assigned the Nkangala Magisterial District and the remainder of the Gert Sibande Magisterial District.

The notice does not expressly state that the concurrent jurisdiction of the main seats over the geographical area allocated to the local seats, is abolished.   That conclusion is inferred from the fact that separate geographical areas are recorded in respect of each of the main and local seats.   The question is whether that inference is legally justified.

Can the Minister abolish concurrent jurisdiction or merely redraw the local-seat map?

The notice has been interpreted by some as bringing concurrent jurisdiction of certain main seats to an end, with the result that, for example, Pretoria would no longer entertain matters arising within Johannesburg’s geographical area, and Mbombela would no longer entertain matters arising within Middelburg’s geographical area.

In other words, the notice, on this interpretation, creates mutually exclusive areas of jurisdiction for certain main and local seats. This would mean that, from the stated commencement of the Notice, matters arising, for example, within the geographical jurisdiction of Johannesburg can only be instituted in Johannesburg, and no longer in Pretoria. If you incorrectly institute such action in Pretoria, it may then be met with a jurisdictional challenge by your opponent, transfer of proceedings, cost orders, and a delay in obtaining justice.

In our view, however, such an interpretation would render the notice ultra vires the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, which, although permitting the Minister to determine  the area under the jurisdiction of a Division and the area under the jurisdiction of a local seat, does not permit the Minister, by notice in the Gazette, to determine a main seat’s geographical area as separate from that of the Division, or to remove the main seat’s concurrent original jurisdiction over an area served by a local seat. The main seat accordingly retains concurrent jurisdiction over the entire geographical area served by the Division itself. If exclusive local-seat jurisdiction is to be created, that requires legislative intervention, amendment of the Superior Courts Act and cannot be achieved by ministerial notice alone. 

Jurisdiction belongs to the Division

Section 21(1) of the Superior Courts Act provides that a “Division” has jurisdiction over persons, causes and offences within its area of jurisdiction.

Section 6(3)(a) empowers the Minister to determine the area under the jurisdiction of a Division, while section 6(3)(c) permits the Minister to establish a local seat and determine its area of jurisdiction. Those powers must be exercised within the statutory structure created by the Act. The Act does not establish the main and local seats as separate Divisions. They are seats of a single Division.

This distinction is important. In Murray and Others NNO v African Global Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others 2020 (2) SA 93 (SCA), the Supreme Court of Appeal explained that the Superior Courts Act abolished the former local divisions. Local seats are not separate courts. They form part of the relevant provincial Division. Although Murray concerned the jurisdiction of Masters’ offices, its explanation of the statutory structure created by the Act remains directly relevant.

That statutory approach is supported by Frank Mhlongo and Others v Tryphinah Mokoena NO and Others 2022 (6) SA 129 (SCA). The Supreme Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction is a matter of law governed by section 21 of the Superior Courts Act, and that a practice directive cannot oust territorial jurisdiction conferred by the Act. It distinguished the power of a Judge President to regulate circuit courts from the Minister’s power under section 6(3)(a) to determine the area under the jurisdiction of a Division.

Mhlongo’s significance is that the Minister’s power is defined and limited by the Act. The notice can therefore operate only to the extent authorised by section 6(3), read with section 21. It cannot, by implication alone, alter the statutory relationship between a Division and its main and local seats.

Section 21 accordingly confers jurisdiction on the Division, rather than separately on its main and local seats. The main seat is the principal seat at which the Division exercises that jurisdiction; it is not merely another localised court standing alongside the local seat.

The allocation of a defined area to a local seat makes that area part of the area served by the local seat within the Division. In the absence of clear statutory language, it does not follow that the same area is thereby excised from the jurisdiction exercised by the Division at its main seat.

The appellate authority on concurrent jurisdiction

The most important authority is Standard Bank of SA Ltd and Others v Thobejane and Others; Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Gqirana NO and Another 2021 (6) SA 403 (SCA).

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that:

“The main seat of a Division of a High Court is obliged to entertain matters that fall within the jurisdiction of a local seat of that Division because the main seat has concurrent jurisdiction.”

The Court also explained that, where legislation offers alternative competent fora, the initiating party may choose between them. A court cannot refuse to hear a matter falling within its jurisdiction merely because another court or seat also has jurisdiction.

The Constitutional Court subsequently granted leave but dismissed the appeal in South African Human Rights Commission v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2023 (3) SA 36 (CC), leaving the SCA’s operative order undisturbed. The Constitutional Court emphasised that a court either has jurisdiction or it does not, and that the question is answered, in this context, by reference to section 21 of the Superior Courts Act.

The earlier Full Court decision in Thembani Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd v September 2014 (5) SA 51 (ECG) similarly held that local seats enjoy concurrent jurisdiction over smaller areas than the main seat, while the main seat’s jurisdiction extends across the Division’s broader territorial area.

Although these judgments pre-date the notice and did not consider its wording, they establish that main-seat concurrency is rooted in the statutory structure of the Superior Courts Act, rather than in an administrative arrangement capable of being withdrawn by notice.

The conclusion is reinforced by the strong presumption against the ouster of High Court jurisdiction. In Dreyer NO and Another v Standard Bank; Nedbank Ltd and Another v Abrahams [2026] ZASCA 74, the Supreme Court of Appeal reaffirmed that such an ouster is not readily inferred. The notice contains no express language making local-seat jurisdiction exclusive or abolishing the main seat’s concurrent jurisdiction.

What the Rationalisation Committee recommended

It is also important to consider the Rationalisation Committee’s Phase 1 report, which was publicly released in July 2023. The Committee was tasked with investigating and making recommendations regarding the areas over which the main and local seats of every Division should exercise jurisdiction.

The Committee expressly contemplated that:

• the main seat would have exclusive jurisdiction over its directly allocated area;
• the local seat would exercise jurisdiction over its allocated area; and
• the main seat would retain concurrent jurisdiction over the area served by the local seat.

In relation to Gauteng, the Committee stated that delimiting an area for Pretoria would not remove its concurrent jurisdiction over the remainder of the province. Pretoria would continue to exercise jurisdiction throughout Gauteng, concurrently with Johannesburg within Johannesburg’s local-seat area.[1] In relation to Mpumalanga, the Committee stated expressly that the main seat at Mbombela would have concurrent jurisdiction with the Middelburg local seat over the latter’s area.[2]

Most significantly, the Committee recognised that the question whether local seats should enjoy exclusive jurisdiction over their assigned areas required legislative consideration and should be referred to Parliament.[3]

The report is not binding authority and does not itself confer jurisdiction. It nevertheless provides important contextual support for the interpretation of the notice because it was intended to implement the Committee’s Phase 1 recommendations. Viewed as an aid to interpretation of the notice, the Committee’s recommendation is inconsistent with the proposition that exclusive local-seat jurisdiction could be introduced through a ministerial notice alone, without substantive amendment of the Superior Courts Act.

Our interpretation of the notice

The notice must be interpreted in accordance with its language, the Superior Courts Act, the binding authorities and the purpose for which the jurisdictional rationalisation was undertaken. The Rationalisation Committee’s report is relevant context, but it does not replace the Act or determine the legal meaning of the notice.

We submit that, on a proper interpretation, the Gazette determines the areas primarily served by each seat without purporting to abolish the main seat’s concurrent jurisdiction over an area allocated to a local seat. This interpretation gives effect to the notice while preserving the statutory relationship between the Division and its seats.

Accordingly, on this interpretation, Pretoria retains concurrent jurisdiction over matters arising within Johannesburg’s geographical area. Similarly, Mbombela retains concurrent jurisdiction over matters arising within Middelburg’s geographical area. This position applies equally to the Limpopo and North West Divisions affected by the Notice, subject to their respective seat allocations.

Are all pending proceedings protected?

The notice contains a transitional provision protecting proceedings already placed on the trial roll.

The provision in the notice is narrower than section 6(3)(d) of the Superior Courts Act, which states that publication of a notice determining or amending an area of jurisdiction “does not affect any proceedings which are pending at the time of such publication”. This accords with the trite principle, perpetuatio jurisdictionis, that once a court is properly seized with jurisdiction at the commencement of an action, it retains that authority until the matter is fully concluded.

The statutory protection is not confined to matters already enrolled for trial. It extends to all proceedings pending when the notice was published on 2 July 2026.

A ministerial notice cannot narrow the protection conferred by the Act. In our view, clarification is required from the Minister in this regard, to ensure that the transitional arrangements provided for in the notice are not themselves ultra vires the Act.

In our view, all proceedings that were pending when the notice was published should therefore remain unaffected, whether they have been placed on the trial roll, or not.

The Act, moreover, keys that protection to the date of publication. Neither the notice’s narrower reference to matters already on the trial roll, nor the commencement date of 1 July 2026 stated in the notice, a day before publication on 2 July 2026, can displace the statutory right.

Whether particular proceedings were already “pending” on 2 July 2026 may depend on the procedural context, including whether issue, filing or service is decisive. That question does not affect the broader point: section 6(3)(d), rather than the narrower transitional wording of the notice, governs.

Conclusion

In our view, the notice redraws and rationalises the geographical areas primarily served by the Divisions and local seats. It does not lawfully abolish the concurrent original jurisdiction of the main seat over an area served by a local seat.

Accordingly, Pretoria retains concurrent original jurisdiction over the area served by the Johannesburg local seat, and Mbombela retains concurrent original jurisdiction over the area served by the Middelburg local seat. The same statutory reasoning applies to the Limpopo and North West Divisions.

In addition, the notice cannot limit or dilute the protection afforded to matters that were pending at the time of publication, regardless of whether a date was provided, or not.

Article by: Hannes Hyman (Director) & Waldo Snyman (Director) on 30 July 2026.

*This article is intended as general information and does not constitute legal advice. The appropriate forum must be determined with reference to the facts and procedural requirements of each matter.

[1] Report of the Committee on the Rationalisation of Areas under the Jurisdiction of the Divisions of the High Court of South Africa and Judicial Establishments Paragraph 300.

[2] Report of the Committee on the Rationalisation of Areas under the Jurisdiction of the Divisions of the High Court of South Africa and Judicial Establishments-Paragraph 370.

[3] Report of the Committee on the Rationalisation of Areas under the Jurisdiction of the Divisions of the High Court of South Africa and Judicial Establishments Paragraphs 481–482.