East London's Magistrate’s Court civil section faces “a total collapse of service delivery”, with huge backlogs in judgments.
This is according to a special investigation by two independent magistrates in September last year which found the workload in the city’s civil section was spread unevenly, with magistrate Moeketsi Mdalane carrying the bulk of the load.
It also noted “unreasonable” delays of more than a year in handing down default judgments, which are rulings handed down when a party does not heed a court summons.
“Despite many letters from attorneys over the last 18 months regarding outstanding judgments, management has not assisted Mr Mdalane in addressing the problem of the backlog in default judgments.”
The report criticised the supervising clerk of the civil court, Mcebisi Kobese, for refusing to cooperate when asked to appoint a clerk to make files available for auditing.
The Daily Dispatch sent detailed questions to the national Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and officials in the local courts.
But the secretary to the Magistrate’s Commission, Danie Schoeman, claimed the media had no right to the information in the report and referred queries to East London’s chief magistrate, Valerie Gqiba, who declined to comment.
The report, titled Ad Hoc Judicial Quality Assurance Assessment, was compiled by magistrates I Botha of Pretoria and Gaynae Tuck of Port Elizabeth, who investigated 100 civil files going back to 2012 for “test checks”.
The East London civil section handled 21199 cases in 2012 and 18749 the following year. In the first eight months of last year, before the report was compiled, 11127 civil cases had been lodged.
It paints a picture of disarray in the busy civil court section.
In addition to the sample audit of 100 files, the two investigators found hundreds of outstanding default judgment files in the offices of two magistrates. Court managers undertook to distribute outstanding applications for default judgment and maintenance orders among all magistrates, including those in criminal courts, when the report was completed.
The report flies in the face of assurances given by Gqiba in April last year that problems with delays in default judgments had been addressed.
The chairperson of the East London and Mdantsane Attorneys Association, Bulwana Bangani, said this week: “The situation has not improved.”
The report states that no maintenance and default judgments were receiving attention from magistrates.
The magistrate’s court civil section is closely regulated with detailed rules covering every eventuality.
In two matters highlighted in the investigation, the record of proceedings does not indicate if section 65A or 65J of the Magistrate’s Court Act applies – the former section specifies an inquiry into whether a judgment debtor – someone judged to owe money – can pay the debt, while 65J specifies an emoluments attachment order, which are deductions ordered from a debtor’s salary.
In their visits to the offices of two magistrates, the investigating team “observed” a total of 1126 unfinished default judgments and maintenance applications. In magistrate Mdalane’s office they saw 560 default judgment files “in which judgments were still outstanding” and in magistrate Bharatt Hansjee’s office, 566 applications for maintenance were observed.
The report notes that Hansjee has been acting in the regional court since August last year and nobody had been appointed to act in his place.
“The work has also not been re-allocated amongst his colleagues.”
Magistrate Xoliswa Stuurman allegedly refused to allow a clerk to list the outstanding default judgments in her office in February last year and these were all taken over by Mdalane.
“Despite the many outstanding default judgments Ms Stuurman does not assist to finalise them.”
Mdalane’s workload increased “sevenfold” when a colleague died and he was allocated applications under the Protection from Harassment Act of 2011, which came into effect on April 27, 2013.
The report has come to light in a high court application to compel Stuurman to provide reasons for one of her judgments in a civil claim for damages following an altercation at an East London pub.
Reasons for a judgment are a requirement when a magistrate’s court matter is being appealed to the high court and the process is also tightly regulated by court rules.
In an affidavit explaining her position, Stuurman said there was no record of the attorney having asked for reasons.
The report found the register of requests for reasons was in disarray and magistrates “may well be unaware of requests for reasons which have been handed in.”
lSee more reports, page 6
EL civil courts in shambles
This is according to a special investigation by two independent magistrates in September last year which found the workload in the city’s civil section was spread unevenly, with magistrate Moeketsi Mdalane carrying the bulk of the load.
It also noted “unreasonable” delays of more than a year in handing down default judgments, which are rulings handed down when a party does not heed a court summons.
“Despite many letters from attorneys over the last 18 months regarding outstanding judgments, management has not assisted Mr Mdalane in addressing the problem of the backlog in default judgments.”
The report criticised the supervising clerk of the civil court, Mcebisi Kobese, for refusing to cooperate when asked to appoint a clerk to make files available for auditing.
The Daily Dispatch sent detailed questions to the national Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and officials in the local courts.
But the secretary to the Magistrate’s Commission, Danie Schoeman, claimed the media had no right to the information in the report and referred queries to East London’s chief magistrate, Valerie Gqiba, who declined to comment.
The report, titled Ad Hoc Judicial Quality Assurance Assessment, was compiled by magistrates I Botha of Pretoria and Gaynae Tuck of Port Elizabeth, who investigated 100 civil files going back to 2012 for “test checks”.
The East London civil section handled 21199 cases in 2012 and 18749 the following year. In the first eight months of last year, before the report was compiled, 11127 civil cases had been lodged.
It paints a picture of disarray in the busy civil court section.
In addition to the sample audit of 100 files, the two investigators found hundreds of outstanding default judgment files in the offices of two magistrates. Court managers undertook to distribute outstanding applications for default judgment and maintenance orders among all magistrates, including those in criminal courts, when the report was completed.
The report flies in the face of assurances given by Gqiba in April last year that problems with delays in default judgments had been addressed.
The chairperson of the East London and Mdantsane Attorneys Association, Bulwana Bangani, said this week: “The situation has not improved.”
The report states that no maintenance and default judgments were receiving attention from magistrates.
The magistrate’s court civil section is closely regulated with detailed rules covering every eventuality.
In two matters highlighted in the investigation, the record of proceedings does not indicate if section 65A or 65J of the Magistrate’s Court Act applies – the former section specifies an inquiry into whether a judgment debtor – someone judged to owe money – can pay the debt, while 65J specifies an emoluments attachment order, which are deductions ordered from a debtor’s salary.
In their visits to the offices of two magistrates, the investigating team “observed” a total of 1126 unfinished default judgments and maintenance applications. In magistrate Mdalane’s office they saw 560 default judgment files “in which judgments were still outstanding” and in magistrate Bharatt Hansjee’s office, 566 applications for maintenance were observed.
The report notes that Hansjee has been acting in the regional court since August last year and nobody had been appointed to act in his place.
“The work has also not been re-allocated amongst his colleagues.”
Magistrate Xoliswa Stuurman allegedly refused to allow a clerk to list the outstanding default judgments in her office in February last year and these were all taken over by Mdalane.
“Despite the many outstanding default judgments Ms Stuurman does not assist to finalise them.”
Mdalane’s workload increased “sevenfold” when a colleague died and he was allocated applications under the Protection from Harassment Act of 2011, which came into effect on April 27, 2013.
The report has come to light in a high court application to compel Stuurman to provide reasons for one of her judgments in a civil claim for damages following an altercation at an East London pub.
Reasons for a judgment are a requirement when a magistrate’s court matter is being appealed to the high court and the process is also tightly regulated by court rules.
In an affidavit explaining her position, Stuurman said there was no record of the attorney having asked for reasons.
The report found the register of requests for reasons was in disarray and magistrates “may well be unaware of requests for reasons which have been handed in.”
lSee more reports, page 6
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