On 22 April 2025, Judge President Dunstan Mlambo of the Gauteng Division of the High Court issued a new directive with immediate effect, making mediation mandatory for all civil trials in the Gauteng Division. This directive seeks to confront the challenges in our justice system: extreme backlogs in the civil court rolls and unacceptable delays in accessing trial dates.
Civil trial dates in Gauteng are now being allocated as far into the future as 2031 — a seven-year lead time that Judge Mlambo unequivocally decried as “unacceptable, intolerable, and unconstitutional.” This delay undermines the constitutional guarantee of access to courts (section 34 of the Constitution) and leaves litigants in legal and financial limbo for years.
Shockingly, up to 85% of civil matters are settled on the morning of trial, often after waiting two to three years for a court date. These statistics highlight how many cases could have — and should have — been resolved well before occupying a judicial slot.
Under the new directive, no trial date will be issued unless accompanied by a mediator’s report. This requirement applies to all civil trials and must be issued by an accredited mediator or judicial case manager (in commercial matters).
Some commentators have questioned whether mandatory mediation will truly reduce backlogs or simply add another procedural layer. While these concerns are valid, it is important to understand that the goal of mediation is not only to provide an alternative pathway for resolving certain disputes, but also to reframe how litigation is approached in the first place. By institutionalising early dialogue and resolution, the directive seeks to prevent unnecessary litigation from ever reaching the trial stage. If implemented with integrity and supported by a qualified cohort of mediators, it may significantly reduce demand on court resources over time — though results will take a few years to fully materialise.
Another contentious issue is the striking of long-standing matters from the roll, particularly where parties have waited years for their day in court. It is understandably frustrating for litigants to be told they must now undergo a new process to re-enrol, even when their original dates were allocated in good faith. From a fairness perspective, this feels abrupt — especially for plaintiffs nearing closure. However, viewed systemically, it’s an effort to reallocate court time to cases that have actively pursued resolution, rather than passively awaited trial. The real test will be whether the new system enables re-enrolment on fairer, faster terms — the Directive promises allocation within 18 months of a compliant mediation attempt.
This is not merely a procedural requirement — it is a pivot away from adversarial litigation as a default, toward a more collaborative, early-resolution model. The aim is to free up the court roll for disputes that genuinely require judicial intervention, while encouraging timely, cost-effective settlements through mediation.
From 22 April 2025 to 31 December 2026 – Transitional measures apply. Certain 2025 trial dates (especially RAF matters) will stand, subject to submission of a mediator’s report within specific timeframes (seven or 30 court days, depending on the matter).
From 1 January 2027 – All previously allocated trial dates are withdrawn. New enrolments will only be processed if compliant with the mediation protocol and will be scheduled within 18 months of the request.
This phased approach gives the legal profession time to adjust, but the direction is unambiguous: litigation without attempted mediation will no longer be tolerated in Gauteng.
This directive will have an immediate operational impact on litigators and firms. Legal teams must:
1. Engage with professional mediators early in the litigation process.
2. Integrate mediation timelines into case strategy and trial preparation.
3. Educate clients about the consequences of non-compliance (cases being struck off the roll).
4. Be ready to approach the court to compel mediation if the opposing party is uncooperative.
Settlement rolls will continue to be available on four weeks’ notice to simplify resolution post-mediation or private settlement.
For clients, this shift may trigger more serious consideration of arbitration or private dispute resolution forums — particularly in commercial contexts where delay equals financial detriment. Many clients may find mediation to be a cost-effective middle ground, while others may opt to bypass the public court system entirely in favour of binding arbitration, where timetables are within their control.
Judge President Mlambo’s directive reflects not just a judicial solution to case overload, but a strategic reorientation of the legal system in our country. This is more than a procedural reform — it is an opportunity to change how we view dispute resolution, client service, and judicial responsibility. The legal profession must now lead the transition, embracing a culture of efficiency, resolution, and constitutional accountability.
This article was prepared by Dalen Mmako and Pierre Burger.