End Of Concurrent Jurisdiction: Understanding The New Jurisdictional Boundaries In The Gauteng Division Of The High Court Of South Africa

Practitioners in the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa will need to take immediate notice of a significant jurisdictional change that took effect on 1 July 2026. The concurrent jurisdiction between the Johannesburg seat and the Pretoria seat (main seat) of the Gauteng Division, which has been in place since 29 March 2018, has come to an end.

The Earlier Notice had provided that Johannesburg, as a local seat, “has concurrent jurisdiction with the main seat [Pretoria] until such time that the area of jurisdiction of the local seat is determined in terms of section 6(3)(c) of the Act.” That time has now arrived. The Minister has exercised the power contemplated in section 6(3)(c) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (“the SC Act”) and has determined the area of jurisdiction of the Johannesburg local seat, thereby bringing the concurrent jurisdiction regime to an end.

The effect of the Abolishing Notice is that the Gauteng Division no longer operates under a regime of concurrent jurisdiction. Each seat now has its own defined geographical area of jurisdiction, determined by reference to magisterial districts and sub-districts.

Litigants and legal practitioners must now institute proceedings in the seat that has jurisdiction over the relevant magisterial district.

The new jurisdictional boundaries are thus drawn primarily along the lines of the existing magisterial districts in Gauteng. The Pretoria seat retains jurisdiction over the Tshwane metropolitan area, while the Johannesburg seat assumes jurisdiction over the remainder of the province, including the East Rand (Ekurhuleni), the greater Johannesburg area, the Vaal Triangle (Sedibeng), and the West Rand.

Transitional arrangements — pending matters

The Abolishing Notice contains a transitional provision which reads as follows:

“Despite the publication of this Notice and the withdrawal of the Government Notices referred to in paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c) above, proceedings which have already been placed on the court roll for trial, but have not been concluded before the coming into effect of this Notice, must be concluded as if this Notice has not been published.”

This transitional provision provides some comfort in that matters already enrolled for trial will not be disrupted. A matter that has been placed on the court roll for trial in the Johannesburg seat, for example, but which would now fall within the jurisdiction of the Pretoria seat, may be concluded in Johannesburg as if the Abolishing Notice had not been published. The same applies vice versa.

However, the transitional provision raises several areas of uncertainty. The protection it affords is expressly limited to proceedings “which have already been placed on the court roll for trial.” This language is notably narrow. It does not, on its face, cover:

• Matters that have been instituted (whether by way of summons or notice of motion) but have not yet been enrolled for trial or hearing. If a summons was issued from the Johannesburg seat prior to 1 July 2026 in respect of a cause of action that now falls within the jurisdiction of the Pretoria seat, the transitional provision does not expressly protect that matter.
• Matters at the pre-trial stage, including case management proceedings and interlocutory applications. These proceedings are not “placed on the court roll for trial” in the conventional sense, and it is unclear whether they are protected.
• Matters where summons has been issued but not yet served. The position of such matters is particularly uncertain, as the proceedings may be said to be in existence (by virtue of the issue of process) but not yet lis pendens.

The Abolishing Notice does not provide guidance on whether litigants must transfer such matters to the correct court, or whether the court in which the matter was instituted may exercise a discretion to retain the matter on grounds of convenience or in the interests of justice. It is submitted that the absence of express provision for these categories of matters is a significant lacuna that may give rise to satellite litigation and unnecessary procedural disputes.

Practical implications and additional observations

The end of concurrent jurisdiction has a number of immediate practical implications for practitioners and litigants in Gauteng.

First, practitioners must now carefully consider jurisdiction when issuing proceedings. The days of choosing between Johannesburg and Pretoria based on convenience or preference are over.

Second, there may be cost implications for litigants who discover that their matters must now be heard in Pretoria rather than Johannesburg, or vice versa. This is particularly relevant for litigants in border areas — for example, parties situated in areas that may have been conveniently served by the Johannesburg seat but now fall within the Tshwane Magisterial District, or parties in Ekurhuleni who may have preferred the Pretoria seat for particular reasons.

Third, the change may have implications for attorneys’ mandates, briefing patterns, and the distribution of work between the two seats. Firms with offices in both Johannesburg and Pretoria may need to reassess which office handles which matters. Correspondents may be required where they were not previously necessary.

Fourth, practitioners should urgently review their pending matters and assess whether any steps need to be taken to ensure that proceedings are in the correct seat. Where matters have been instituted in what may now be the incorrect seat and have not yet been enrolled for trial, practitioners should consider whether it is necessary to approach the court for an order transferring the matter, or whether the matter should simply be withdrawn and re-instituted in the correct seat. The costs implications of such steps are not insignificant and may become a source of contention between parties.

Conclusion

The end of concurrent jurisdiction in the Gauteng Division brings much-needed clarity to the jurisdictional boundaries between the Pretoria and Johannesburg seats. For the first time since the commencement of the SC Act, practitioners will have certainty as to which seat has jurisdiction over which geographical area. However, the transition is not without its challenges.

The narrow scope of the transitional provision, the absence of guidance on pending matters that have not yet been enrolled for trial, and the practical implications of the new boundaries all require urgent attention.

Practitioners and litigants are advised to take immediate steps to familiarise themselves with the new boundaries and assess the impact on existing and future matters.