High Court Judge Denise Fisher Appeals Misconduct Verdict, Argues Due Process Not Followed

Judge Denise Fisher of the Johannesburg High Court is fervently working to clear her name after being reprimanded for what has been termed as judicial overreach in cases involving the Road Accident Fund (RAF). Last year, Judge Jeremiah Shongwe, responding to complaints from De Broglio Attorneys, found misconduct in Fisher's handling of the cases, launching a series of legal challenges that have spotlighted the complexities of judicial oversight and procedural fairness in South Africa.

Judge Denise Fisher High Court

She is the Presiding officer for my matter at the equality court against Oppenheimer thugs. I have reported her to the JSC and asked for impeachment.

She removed all the abuse I endured including hate speech in order for the matter not to be heard… pic.twitter.com/vwcVKFaWdf

— 🍎 Jenna 🇿🇦 🇷🇺 🇵🇸 (@jenna_original) May 3, 2024

The saga began when De Broglio Attorneys accused Judge Fisher of making unfair judgments and reporting them to professional bodies without proper representation. However, Judge Shongwe acknowledged that Fisher’s actions were neither wilful nor grossly negligent. Yet, he still issued a reprimand, sparking an extensive legal debate about the boundaries of judicial conduct and the requirements of the judicial code.

Fisher has challenged the ruling, arguing that Shongwe misinterpreted the findings of an appeals committee concerning her supposed infringement on the rights of the parties involved. She pointed out that the initial complaint was dismissed by Judge President Dunstan Mlambo, who highlighted that such grievances stemming from case judgments don't typically fall within the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) jurisdiction.

The cases at the center of the controversy involve significant claims against the RAF. Notably, in both instances, the RAF was unrepresented due to a broader termination of its attorneys, leaving Fisher to scrutinize the settlements intensely. Among the irregularities Fisher noted were procedural lapses and substantial jumps in claim amounts shortly before trial, which she felt compelled to challenge to preserve judicial integrity and public funds.

Her approach, however, has been criticized as overreach, an accusation she firmly denies. Judge Fisher maintains that her actions were in line with existing laws and contends that the Supreme Court of Appeal's later decision—which required parties to be heard before professional referrals—are made—was a shift from established precedent, highlighting an evolving legal landscape.

Looking ahead, Fisher’s appeal is set for a hearing on the 9th and 10th of April. The legal community and observers are keenly watching this case, as it may set important precedents for how judges engage with settled cases and oversee settlements involving unrepresented parties, especially in situations involving vast public resources.

As this complex legal battle unfolds, it remains to be seen how the judiciary will balance the thin lines between oversight, procedural fairness, and judicial reach, a decision that will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for the legal framework within which South African judges operate.