On 18 December 2025, the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal issued Practice Directive 1 of 2025, introducing a significant procedural refinement to the conduct of oral arguments before the Court. The directive, which took effect immediately, is directed at improving the effective and optimal use of court time in matters where oral argument has been directed in terms of section 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
Although modest in length, the directive carries important implications for appellate advocacy and requires practitioners to rethink how oral submissions are structured and delivered before the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Scope and application of the directive
The directive applies to appeals and applications that have been referred for oral argument under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. In such matters, each counsel, or self represented party, is afforded an opportunity at the commencement of their oral submissions to present their main arguments uninterrupted for a period of ten minutes.
After this initial period, the hearing proceeds in the ordinary course, with counsel continuing their submissions on the understanding that members of the Bench may pose questions at any time. The directive therefore does not restrict judicial engagement but rather regulates the sequencing of oral argument by deferring interruptions until the opening presentation has been completed.
Importantly, the directive recognises that a structured opening may not be appropriate in every case. It expressly permits counsel or self represented parties to waive the entitlement to uninterrupted oral submissions. This preserves flexibility and ensures that the procedure remains responsive to the nature and complexity of the matter being heard.
Purpose and institutional rationale
The stated objective of the directive is the effective and optimal use of court time. This objective reflects an increasing emphasis within appellate courts on focused advocacy and efficient hearings. Oral argument before the Supreme Court of Appeal is not intended to replicate the written heads of argument but to assist the Court in identifying the decisive issues and resolving them with clarity.
By guaranteeing a short period of uninterrupted argument, the directive ensures that each party has a fair opportunity to articulate the core of its case before judicial questioning begins. This allows the Bench to engage with counsel from a clearer understanding of the issues and promotes more targeted and productive exchanges during the remainder of the hearing.
Implications for appellate advocacy
The introduction of a protected opening segment has practical consequences for how counsel prepare for and present oral argument. The ten minute period should be understood as an opportunity to deliver a disciplined and analytical summary of the case rather than a narrative recitation of the factual background. Counsel must identify the governing legal principles, explain how they apply to the facts, and demonstrate why the outcome sought is legally justified.
The directive places a premium on clarity and prioritisation. Counsel who attempt to address too many issues in the opening are likely to dilute the persuasive force of their submissions. Conversely, those who use the time to frame the dispute around the true points of decision will be better positioned to engage meaningfully with the Court once questioning begins.
The option to waive the uninterrupted opening introduces a strategic element. In matters involving a narrow dispositive issue, or where counsel anticipates immediate judicial concern on a specific point, an interactive approach from the outset may be preferable. The choice whether to invoke or waive the ten minute opening must therefore be made deliberately and with careful regard to the nature of the case.
Impact on the conduct of hearings
From an institutional perspective, the directive is likely to result in more structured and efficient hearings. Once the initial uninterrupted arguments have been presented, judicial questions can be directed to the precise issues identified by counsel. This reduces the risk of fragmented submissions and ensures that oral argument remains focused on what truly matters for the determination of the appeal.
At the same time, the directive does not diminish the authority of the Court to control proceedings. After the opening period, the Bench retains full discretion to intervene, question, and guide the course of argument as it sees fit.
Conclusion
Practice Directive 1 of 2025 represents a measured but meaningful evolution in the conduct of oral argument before the Supreme Court of Appeal. By introducing a short period of uninterrupted submissions while preserving judicial control over the remainder of the hearing, the directive seeks to balance fairness, efficiency, and effective appellate adjudication.
For practitioners, the directive underscores the importance of disciplined preparation and focused advocacy. The ten minute opening is not merely a procedural entitlement but a critical opportunity to shape the Court’s understanding of the case. Those who adapt their advocacy accordingly will be best placed to advance their clients’ interests under this new procedural framework.
