What happened
Mr Motjamela worked for the George Local Municipality on temporary Expanded Public Works Programme contracts in 2018. When they ended he litigated, unrepresented, in the bargaining council, the CCMA, the High Court, the Labour Court, the Labour Appeal Court and the Constitutional Court, seeking permanent employment or a settlement. He lost everywhere.
The municipality applied to have him declared a vexatious litigant. The High Court granted an order barring him from instituting proceedings against any party, in any parallel or inferior court, without that court's leave. When he applied for leave to appeal and for the judge's recusal, the High Court suspended those applications, held on its own observation from the bench that he appeared unable to understand the proceedings by reason of mental illness or intellectual disability, and ordered him to undergo a mental health assessment within ten days. When he did not, the court dismissed his applications and barred him from bringing anything further before it without a mental health report.
He tried to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal by email; the application was not processed for non-compliance with procedure. He then applied directly to the Constitutional Court.
What the court held
In Thabang Motjamela v George Local Municipality [2026] ZACC 31, the Constitutional Court granted direct leave to appeal and the municipality's conditional cross-appeal. On 28 May 2026 it had already issued a partial order declaring the interim and final mental health assessment orders unconstitutional; the short judgment of 7 July 2026 gave the reasons and the remaining orders.
On the vexatious litigant order: it was overbroad. The municipality had not asked for an order of that scope, and there was no evidence before the High Court that Mr Motjamela had litigated abusively in matters other than his employment dispute. The order was set aside and replaced with one limited to litigation about the EPWP contracts.
On the mental health assessment orders: the High Court had ignored the established process for dealing with concerns about a litigant's capacity in civil proceedings. It made findings and issued orders on nothing more than the presiding judge's observations from the bench, without the orders being sought and without evidence. Rule 57 of the Uniform Rules provides for the appointment of a curator ad litem to assist the court and a litigant who appears unable to litigate on their own behalf; that process gives the court the evidence it needs while preserving the litigant's dignity and privacy. The orders infringed his rights under sections 10, 12 and 14 of the Constitution and were set aside.
The court then used its inherent power under section 173 to direct the Registrar not to accept further applications from Mr Motjamela about his employment disputes, of which six were pending. Each party bore its own costs.
What it means for your practice
Two lessons, one for each side of the vexatious litigant application.
If you bring the application, draft the order you ask for to the litigation the evidence actually covers. An order restraining a person from suing anyone, anywhere, needs evidence of abuse against others, not just against your client. Ask for too much and the whole order is at risk on appeal, as it was here.
If you act for or against a litigant whose capacity is in question, the only route is Rule 57. An application for the appointment of a curator ad litem, supported by evidence, is what gives the court jurisdiction to act. Inviting the court to form its own view from the bench, or standing by while it does, produces an order that will not survive. The judgment says in terms that this is the established process and that ignoring it infringes constitutional rights.
There is also a practical note on access to the Supreme Court of Appeal. An unrepresented litigant whose emailed application was not processed found that refusal counted, with the orders below, as a block on access to courts that justified direct leave to the Constitutional Court. Firms dealing with self-represented opponents should expect that strict procedural non-compliance will be read in that light.
What to do on your files
Where you have a pending vexatious litigant application, check the scope of the order sought against the evidence of abuse you have filed. Narrow the draft order to the dispute, or file the evidence that supports the wider scope.
Where you have any matter in which a court has questioned a party's capacity, or in which you intend to raise it, prepare a Rule 57 application with a supporting medical affidavit. Do not rely on observations in open court, yours or the judge's.
Where you act for a public body facing a persistent litigant, note the court's own remedy: a direction to the Registrar under section 173 limited to a defined dispute. That is the template for the relief a court will grant.
The court's media summary, from which this note is drawn, is not binding and the judgment should be read in full before you rely on it.
Source: Thabang Motjamela v George Local Municipality [2026] ZACC 31 (CCT 34/26), Constitutional Court, 7 July 2026 (partial order 28 May 2026). The court's own page: https://www.concourt.org.za/index.php/judgement/653-thabang-motjamela-v-george-local-municipality-cct34-26