Application ‘riddled with flaws’.
AN UNIMPRESSED Mthatha High Court judge has lashed out at lawyers who rush to court ill-prepared.
Acting judge Nkosinathi Hinana gave Johannesburg-based advocate Mandla Mathaphuna a dressing down on Wednesday saying the court did not have time to school legal practitioners on how to do their jobs.
“In future this court will adopt a harsher to practitioners who fail to satisfy all the processes of bringing litigation, this wastes the time of this court and cannot be tolerated,” said Hinana.
He was reacting to the respondents in the case before him only being served founding affidavits instead of notices of motion. The documents given to the judge were also all photocopies, when the correct procedure is to produce signed originals.
Mathaphuna was in the Mthatha High Court this week representing Wiseman Sontsi who was seeking to interdict the installation ceremony of Vuma Sontsi, headman of Mhlotsheni village in Mount Frere, claiming that he and not Vuma was the rightful claimant.
The eight respondents include premier Noxolo Kiviet, local government and traditional affairs MEC Mlibo Qoboshiyane and the Eastern Cape House of Traditional Leaders chairman Nkosi Ngangomhlaba Matanzima as well as Nkosi Tembisile Nokwezi Makaula, of the Makaula Traditional Council. Hinana, who made the comments during his ruling on the urgent application, had earlier questioned the advocate’s non-compliance with court rules.
Mathaphuna said time constraints prevented normal procedures from being followed, and requested his actions be allowed, but as this request had not been a formal one, the judge did not approve.
The judge also was unhappy with the application not stating whether Vuma was already appointed and on the government’s payroll.
During the proceedings, the court learnt from the defence team, headed by advocate Vusumzi Msiwa SC, that Vuma had been paid by government to act as headman.
Msiwa said the application was “defective and should be thrown into the Mthatha River as no court of law could waste its time entertaining it”.
The judge said the “application is riddled with flaws”.
“The signature of the officer of oath – who is a police officer – was also a photocopy, while the stamp was original. All the pages are photocopies.
“Each page is initialed by the applicant instead of the commissioner of oath.
“Also there is no return of date,” said Hinana.
The advocate said according to his knowledge, applicants can endorse each page of an application with their initials, but the judge disputed this.
The judge dismissed the application with costs. —
Judge takes ’ill-prepared’ lawyer to task
AN UNIMPRESSED Mthatha High Court judge has lashed out at lawyers who rush to court ill-prepared.
Acting judge Nkosinathi Hinana gave Johannesburg-based advocate Mandla Mathaphuna a dressing down on Wednesday saying the court did not have time to school legal practitioners on how to do their jobs.
“In future this court will adopt a harsher to practitioners who fail to satisfy all the processes of bringing litigation, this wastes the time of this court and cannot be tolerated,” said Hinana.
He was reacting to the respondents in the case before him only being served founding affidavits instead of notices of motion. The documents given to the judge were also all photocopies, when the correct procedure is to produce signed originals.
Mathaphuna was in the Mthatha High Court this week representing Wiseman Sontsi who was seeking to interdict the installation ceremony of Vuma Sontsi, headman of Mhlotsheni village in Mount Frere, claiming that he and not Vuma was the rightful claimant.
The eight respondents include premier Noxolo Kiviet, local government and traditional affairs MEC Mlibo Qoboshiyane and the Eastern Cape House of Traditional Leaders chairman Nkosi Ngangomhlaba Matanzima as well as Nkosi Tembisile Nokwezi Makaula, of the Makaula Traditional Council. Hinana, who made the comments during his ruling on the urgent application, had earlier questioned the advocate’s non-compliance with court rules.
Mathaphuna said time constraints prevented normal procedures from being followed, and requested his actions be allowed, but as this request had not been a formal one, the judge did not approve.
The judge also was unhappy with the application not stating whether Vuma was already appointed and on the government’s payroll.
During the proceedings, the court learnt from the defence team, headed by advocate Vusumzi Msiwa SC, that Vuma had been paid by government to act as headman.
Msiwa said the application was “defective and should be thrown into the Mthatha River as no court of law could waste its time entertaining it”.
The judge said the “application is riddled with flaws”.
“The signature of the officer of oath – who is a police officer – was also a photocopy, while the stamp was original. All the pages are photocopies.
“Each page is initialed by the applicant instead of the commissioner of oath.
“Also there is no return of date,” said Hinana.
The advocate said according to his knowledge, applicants can endorse each page of an application with their initials, but the judge disputed this.
The judge dismissed the application with costs. —
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos