This page presents statistics on judgments delivered by the Constitutional Court of South Africa. The data covers bench composition, opinion authorship, voting patterns, routes to court, delivery times, and outcomes for each judgment that receives a ZACC citation.

The Court’s year runs from April to March. All statistics on this page are organised by financial year accordingly. Most applications to the Constitutional Court are dismissed on the papers without a hearing — the statistics here cover mainly the substantive judgments that the Court delivers with full reasons. Section G below quantifies the full caseload, including dismissed applications.

Two financial years are currently covered: 2024–25 (35 judgments, [2024] ZACC 1–32 and [2025] ZACC 1–3) and 2025–26 (34 judgments, [2025] ZACC 4–28 and [2026] ZACC 1–9). Historical data is being added progressively, working backwards from the present.

---

A. Court Overview

Metric	2024–25	2025–26
Total judgments	35	34
Unanimous judgments	25	27
Split judgments	10	7
Unanimity rate	71.4%	79.4%
Average bench size	8.8	9.3
Total separate opinions	52	45
Majority opinions	34	34
Concurrences	9	2
Dissents	9	9
Decided on papers (no oral hearing)	2	6
Chief Justice	Zondo CJ	Maya CJ

The Court’s unanimity rate rose from 71.4% in 2024–25 to 79.4% in 2025–26, while split judgments fell from 10 to 7. The number of concurrences dropped sharply — from 9 to just 2. The number of dissents held steady at 9 in both years.

---

B. Justice Participation and Authorship

The tables below record each justice’s sittings (the number of judgments on which they sat), opinions authored, and voting record. Where a justice’s title changed during the financial year (as with the appointment of a new Chief Justice or Acting Deputy Chief Justice), the entries are combined under the later title with a note.

2024–25

Justice	Sittings	Majority	Concurrences	Dissents	% in majority	Participation
Tshiqi J	34	3	0	0	100%	97.1%
Mathopo J	32	3	0	1	96.9%	91.4%
Mhlantla J	29	2	0	0	100%	82.9%
Theron J	24	4	0	0	100%	68.6%
Kollapen J	22	2	0	0	100%	62.9%
Rogers J	22	3	3	2	90.9%	62.9%
Majiedt J	19	5	0	0	100%	54.3%
Madlanga J / ADCJ †	18	2	0	0	100%	51.4%
Chaskalson AJ (Acting)	17	3	1	0	100%	48.6%
Zondo CJ	16	2	1	1	93.8%	45.7%
Dodson AJ (Acting)	14	2	1	1	92.9%	40.0%
Maya DCJ / CJ †	14	1	0	0	100%	40.0%
Schippers AJ (Acting)	14	1	0	1	92.9%	40.0%
Bilchitz AJ (Acting)	13	0	2	3	76.9%	37.1%
Van Zyl AJ (Acting)	7	0	1	0	100%	20.0%
Tolmay AJ (Acting)	6	0	0	0	100%	17.1%
Gamble AJ (Acting)	5	1	0	0	100%	14.3%
Seegobin AJ (Acting)	2	0	0	0	100%	5.7%

† Maya served as Deputy Chief Justice until 25 March 2025 and as Chief Justice from 26 March 2025. Madlanga served as a justice until his appointment as Acting Deputy Chief Justice. Figures are combined across both periods.

Tshiqi J sat on 34 of 35 matters — the highest participation rate on the bench. Majiedt J authored the most majority opinions (5) despite sitting on only 19 of 35 matters. Theron J authored 4. Rogers J was the most active separate-opinion writer, with 3 concurrences and 2 dissents. Bilchitz AJ dissented in 3 of his 13 sittings and wrote 2 concurrences, giving him the lowest majority rate (76.9%) of any justice during the term. Eight acting justices sat during 2024–25, contributing a combined 78 sittings and 7 majority opinions — with Chaskalson AJ (17 sittings), Dodson AJ (14), and Schippers AJ (14) each sitting on a substantial proportion of the docket. Zondo CJ participated in 16 of 35 matters (45.7%) and authored 2 majority opinions.

2025–26

Justice	Sittings	Majority	Concurrences	Dissents	% in majority	Participation
Tshiqi J	32	1	0	1	96.9%	94.1%
Majiedt J	31	7	0	1	96.8%	91.2%
Theron J	30	6	0	0	100%	88.2%
Mhlantla J	29	2	0	0	100%	85.3%
Rogers J	29	2	0	1	96.6%	85.3%
Kollapen J	28	3	0	1	96.4%	82.4%
Madlanga ADCJ / J †	25	2	0	1	96.0%	73.5%
Mathopo J	17	3	0	0	100%	50.0%
Opperman AJ (Acting)	13	0	0	0	100%	38.2%
Dambuza AJ (Acting)	12	1	0	0	100%	35.3%
Tolmay AJ (Acting)	11	2	0	0	100%	32.4%
Maya CJ	10	0	0	0	100%	29.4%
Goosen AJ (Acting)	10	2	0	1	90.0%	29.4%
Seegobin AJ (Acting)	10	2	0	0	100%	29.4%
Savage AJ (Acting)	8	0	0	0	100%	23.5%
Mlambo DCJ	7	0	0	0	100%	20.6%
Musi AJ (Acting)	5	1	0	0	100%	14.7%
Zondo CJ	2	0	0	1	50.0%	5.9%
Bilchitz AJ (Acting)	2	0	1	1	50.0%	5.9%
Dodson AJ (Acting)	2	1	1	0	100%	5.9%
Chaskalson AJ (Acting)	1	0	0	1	0%	2.9%
Nicholls AJ (Acting)	1	0	0	0	100%	2.9%
Nuku AJ (Acting)	1	0	0	0	100%	2.9%

† Madlanga served as Acting Deputy Chief Justice for most of 2025–26 and reverted to justice towards the end of the term. Figures are combined across both periods.

Majiedt J was the dominant opinion-writer, authoring 7 of 34 majority opinions. Theron J authored 6. Concurrences fell to just 2 for the entire term (both by acting justices), compared with 9 in 2024–25. Twelve acting justices sat during 2025–26 — nearly double the 8 from the previous year — contributing a combined 76 sittings and 9 majority opinions. Maya CJ sat on 10 of 34 matters (29.4%) and authored no majority opinions, consistent with the convention that the Chief Justice selects benches and assigns opinions rather than writing extensively. Zondo CJ, whose term ended on 25 March 2025, sat on only 2 matters in 2025–26, both decided in April 2025.

---

C. Route to Court

2024–25

Route	Count	%
Appeal from SCA	19	54.3%
Appeal from High Court	8	22.9%
Appeal from LAC	3	8.6%
Appeal from Electoral Court	2	5.7%
Appeal from Competition Appeal Court	1	2.9%
Confirmation of invalidity	1	2.9%
Extension of declaration of invalidity	1	2.9%

2025–26

Route	Count	%
Appeal from SCA	13	38.2%
Confirmation of invalidity	6	17.6%
Direct access	5	14.7%
Appeal from High Court	4	11.8%
Appeal from LAC	3	8.8%
Appeal from CAC	1	2.9%
Appeal from Land Court	1	2.9%
Variation of prior order	1	2.9%

Appeals from the SCA remain the dominant route in both years, though the proportion fell from 54.3% to 38.2%. The most notable shift in 2025–26 is the rise of confirmation-of-invalidity matters (from 1 to 6) and direct access applications (from 0 to 5). Together these account for nearly a third of the 2025–26 docket, reflecting a Court that increasingly exercises its original and confirmatory jurisdiction alongside its traditional appellate function.

---

D. Voting Patterns

2024–25

Vote split	Count	%
Unanimous	25	71.4%
8-1	2	5.7%
7-2	1	2.9%
6-3	2	5.7%
6-2	2	5.7%
5-3	1	2.9%
Plurality	1	2.9%
Fractured	1	2.9%

2025–26

Vote split	Count	%
Unanimous	27	79.4%
7-2	2	5.9%
6-3	3	8.8%
5-4	1	2.9%
5-3	1	2.9%

The unanimity rate rose from 71.4% to 79.4% between the two terms. The 2024–25 term produced one plurality judgment and one fractured judgment (with shifting majorities on different issues); neither pattern appeared in 2025–26. Where the Court did divide in 2025–26, the splits tended to be narrower — three 6-3 decisions and two 7-2 splits, with one close 5-4 division in Maleka v Boyce.

---

E. Judgment Delivery Times

These figures measure the interval from oral hearing to delivery of judgment, excluding matters decided on the papers.

Metric	2024–25	2025–26
Cases with oral hearing	33	28
Average days (hearing to judgment)	216.8	244.0
Median days	225	208.5
Longest	414 days	608 days
Shortest	10 days	51 days

The median delivery time is comparable across both years (225 and 208.5 days respectively), but the 2025–26 average is pulled upward by several outliers, including Godloza v S at 608 days — more than 20 months from hearing to judgment. The shortest turnaround in 2024–25 was 10 days, in the urgent election matters of May 2024.

Individual judgment delivery times

2024–25 — hearing to judgment, sorted longest first (click to expand)

ZACC	Case	Days
[2024] ZACC 29	Motor Industry v Great South	414
[2024] ZACC 25	Govan Mbeki v Glencore	369
[2024] ZACC 22	Botha v Smuts	335
[2024] ZACC 14	Minister Rural Development v Land Bank	330
[2025] ZACC 1	Ekapa Minerals v Sol Plaatje	322
[2024] ZACC 21	President v Sigcau	310
[2024] ZACC 28	Makhala v DPP Western Cape	309
[2024] ZACC 27	Commando v City of Cape Town	297
[2024] ZACC 9	DHB v CSB	253
[2024] ZACC 4	Mafisa v Road Accident Fund	251
[2024] ZACC 8	Regenesys v Ilunga	250
[2025] ZACC 3	SARS v Richards Bay Coal Terminal	238
[2024] ZACC 19	Thistle Trust v CSARS	237
[2024] ZACC 2	Bestbier v Nedbank	234
[2024] ZACC 15	Rambuda v Tshibvumo Royal Family	230
[2025] ZACC 2	United Manganese v SARS	228
[2024] ZACC 20	Greater Tzaneen v Bravospan	225
[2024] ZACC 1	Capitec Bank v CSARS	220
[2024] ZACC 13	AFGRI v NUMSA	213
[2024] ZACC 23	Steyn v Profmed	209
[2024] ZACC 17	Mamasedi v Chief SANDF	197
[2024] ZACC 10	City of Ekurhuleni v Rohlandt Holdings	190
[2024] ZACC 5	President v Tembani	181
[2024] ZACC 24	Rademeyer v Ferreira	169
[2024] ZACC 16	Shoprite v Mafate	168
[2024] ZACC 3	Coca-Cola v Competition Commission	155
[2024] ZACC 30	O’Brien v Minister of Defence	134
[2024] ZACC 11	Coronation v CSARS	129
[2024] ZACC 26	CSARS v Medtronic	122
[2024] ZACC 12	Mphephu-Ramabulana v Premier Limpopo	120
[2024] ZACC 32	Mohlaba v Minister CoGTA	94
[2024] ZACC 7	ACT v Electoral Commission (consolidated)	12
[2024] ZACC 6	Electoral Commission v MK Party	10

Decided on papers (no hearing date): [2024] ZACC 18 Speaker v Women’s Legal Centre; [2024] ZACC 31 Sithole v The State.

2025–26 — hearing to judgment, sorted longest first (click to expand)

ZACC	Case	Days
[2025] ZACC 24	Godloza v S	608
[2026] ZACC 7	Maleka v Boyce	530
[2025] ZACC 6	Huntrex v Berzack	414
[2025] ZACC 27	Golden Core v Merafong Municipality	403
[2026] ZACC 8	DA v Minister of CoGTA	386
[2025] ZACC 14	Shepstone and Wylie v De Witt	344
[2025] ZACC 23	Municipal Employees Pension Fund v City of Johannesburg	336
[2025] ZACC 20	Van Wyk v Minister of Employment and Labour	332
[2026] ZACC 2	VVC v JRM	330
[2025] ZACC 28	Wares v Additional Magistrate Simonstown	313
[2026] ZACC 6	Harris v Herold Gie	276
[2025] ZACC 17	Mutsila v Municipal Gratuity Fund	269
[2025] ZACC 13	Vodacom v Makate	252
[2025] ZACC 4	SAMWU v Minister of Cooperative Governance	211
[2025] ZACC 18	Sunwest v WC Gambling Board	206
[2025] ZACC 19	Jordaan v Minister Home Affairs	191
[2025] ZACC 8	DA v Minister of Home Affairs	182
[2025] ZACC 7	Minister of Justice v Ntuli	167
[2026] ZACC 5	Famous Idea Trading v GEMS	167
[2025] ZACC 9	Blind SA v President	160
[2025] ZACC 15	Corruption Watch v Speaker	148
[2026] ZACC 1	Tholo Energy v SARS	143
[2025] ZACC 16	Mereki v Moladora Trust	127
[2026] ZACC 3	DPP Johannesburg v Schultz; DPP Bloemfontein v Cholota	80
[2025] ZACC 25	SA Riding for the Disabled v Land Claims Commission	72
[2025] ZACC 26	Socialist Agenda v Minister of CogTA	70
[2025] ZACC 21	Zuma v President	65
[2026] ZACC 4	Lewis Stores v Pepkor	51

Decided on papers: [2025] ZACC 5 Prithilal v Akani Egoli; [2025] ZACC 10 Mothulwe v Labour Court; [2025] ZACC 11 Mavundla v Gotcha Security; [2025] ZACC 12 President v Speaker National Assembly; [2025] ZACC 22 Minister of CogTA v Speaker (Mogale extension); [2026] ZACC 9 Minister of Defence v O’Brien.

---

F. Result Breakdown

Result	2024–25	2025–26
Appeal upheld	18 (51.4%)	12 (35.3%)
Mixed/varied	7 (20.0%)	1 (2.9%)
Appeal dismissed	3 (8.6%)	4 (11.8%)
Leave refused	3 (8.6%)	2 (5.9%)
Invalidity confirmed	2 (5.7%)	7 (20.6%)
Direct access granted	0 (0%)	4 (11.8%)
Suspension extended	1 (2.9%)	2 (5.9%)
Application refused	1 (2.9%)	2 (5.9%)

Appeals upheld remain the largest single category in both years, though the proportion fell from 51.4% to 35.3%. The most striking shift is the drop in mixed/varied outcomes (from 7 to 1) and the rise of invalidity confirmations (from 2 to 7). The 2025–26 term also saw 4 direct access applications granted — a route that produced no successful outcomes in 2024–25. These changes mirror the shift in routes to court noted in Section C: a Court increasingly exercising confirmatory and original jurisdiction.

---

G. Caseflow Pipeline

The sections above cover only the substantive judgments that receive ZACC citations. Most applications to the Constitutional Court are dismissed on the papers without a hearing. This section quantifies that reality, drawing on the Registrar’s caseflow documents.

Summary

Metric	2024–25	2025–26
Total cases dismissed on papers	287	229
ZACC judgments delivered	35	34
Dismissal-to-judgment ratio	8.2 : 1	6.7 : 1
Cases pending at snapshot	189	42
Cases awaiting directions at snapshot	175	42
Cases withdrawn	6	4

The dismissal-to-judgment ratio means that for every substantive judgment the Court delivered in 2024–25, approximately 8 applications were dismissed on the papers. In 2025–26 that ratio fell to roughly 7 to 1. The sharp drop in pending cases (from 189 to 42) between the two snapshots reflects a significant reduction in the Court’s backlog.

Snapshot limitation: The caseflow figures are drawn from Registrar documents dated 20 February 2025 (for 2024–25) and 20 February 2026 (for 2025–26). Both snapshots were taken approximately one month before the end of the financial year, so the figures are not final. The 2025–26 dismissed case count in particular (229) is likely incomplete, as Q4 (January–March 2026) had recorded only 19 dismissals at the time of the snapshot compared with 63 in Q4 of 2024–25.

Dismissed cases: quarterly distribution

2024–25

Quarter	Count	%
Q1 (Apr–Jun)	70	24.4%
Q2 (Jul–Sep)	104	36.2%
Q3 (Oct–Dec)	50	17.4%
Q4 (Jan–Mar)	63	22.0%
Total	287	100%

2025–26

Quarter	Count	%
Q1 (Apr–Jun)	56	24.5%
Q2 (Jul–Sep)	68	29.7%
Q3 (Oct–Dec)	86	37.6%
Q4 (Jan–Mar)	19	8.3%
Total	229	100%

The Q4 figure for 2025–26 is incomplete — the Registrar’s document was dated 20 February 2026, approximately six weeks before the end of the financial year. The Registrar’s records provide only the quarter of dismissal, not the exact date of the dismissal order, so no timing analysis is possible for dismissed cases at present. The dates recorded in the Registrar’s documents appear to be the date the dismissal was issued to the parties rather than the date of the original application.

---

H. Methodology and Notes

Data sources. The primary source for Sections A–F is the judgment text for each ZACC citation, downloaded from SAFLII. The caseflow data in Section G is drawn from documents published by the Registrar of the Constitutional Court.

Opinion classification. Each separately authored opinion is classified as a majority opinion, concurrence, or dissent. A majority opinion commands the support of a majority of the bench and determines the Court’s order. A concurrence agrees with the order but writes separately. A dissent disagrees with the order. Where a judgment header explicitly labels an opinion as “minority,” it is classified as a dissent.

Vote splits. The vote split for each judgment is determined from the explicit vote count in the judgment text where available, or inferred from the opinion structure and joinder statements. A “unanimous” classification means all justices on the bench agreed on the order, even if a separate concurrence was filed on reasoning. “Plurality” denotes a judgment where no single opinion commanded a majority. “Fractured” denotes a judgment with different majorities on different issues.

Flagged classifications. A small number of classification judgments were required where the judgment text was ambiguous — for example, where a justice concurred in part and dissented in part, or where the vote split was not explicitly stated. These are documented in the project’s data quality log. They do not materially affect the aggregate statistics.

Delivery times. Calculated as calendar days from the date of oral hearing to the date the judgment was delivered. Matters decided on the papers are excluded.

Financial year. The Constitutional Court’s year runs from 1 April to 31 March. Judgments are assigned to the financial year in which they were delivered.

Corrections. Every effort is put into ensuring the data presented is accurate, but there is a large amount of data and some of it is decided based on judgement calls. If any error is noted then please do let us know so we can consider and correct it.