Nomngcongo v Mathibeli and Another (CIV/T 352 of 2010) [2011] LSHC 108 (20 April 2011)

IN THE HIGH COUR T OF LE S OTHO In t h e m a t t er b et ween : CIV/ T/ 3 5 2 / 2 0 1 0 MR J US TICE THAMS ANQA NOMNGCONGO P LAINTIF F An d R E V. MALE KA ALP HONS E MATHIBE LI MAZE NOD P R INTING WOR KS 1 S T DE F E NDANT 2 ND DE F E NDANT R ULING De live r e d by t h e Ho n o u r a ble Ac t in g J u d ge L. A. Mo le t e On t h e 2 0 t h Ap r il 2 0 1 1 Th is m a tter com es b efore m e a s a n Ap p lica tion for Res cis s io n of a ju d gm en t I gr a n ted b y d efa u lt in fa vou r of th e p la in tiff on th e 2 4 t h Feb r u a r y 2 0 1 1 . Th e d efen d a n ts a p p lied for res cis s ion of th e ju d gm en t, a n d b oth p a r ties ’ cou n s el a p p ea red b efore m e on th e 4 t h Ap r il for a lloca tion of a d a te of h ea r in g. On th a t d a y th ey a ls o a greed to s ta y execu tion of th e ju d gm en t a n d con s olid a te th e two a p p lica tion s a s for s om e rea s on th e two d efen d a n ts h a d a p p lied s ep a r a tely. A d a te of h ea r in g wa s fixed for th e a r gu m en t b ein g th e 1 5 t h Ap r il 2 0 1 1 . Mr . Ph oofolo for th e d efen d a n ts in d ica ted a t th a t s ta ge th a t h e in ten d ed to a p p ly for m y recu s a l fr om th e ca s e on th e b a s is th a t p la in tiff in th e m a tter is m y collea gu e a n d s en ior . Th e a p p lica tion cou ld n ot b e en ter ta in ed b eca u s e th e p a r ties were fa ced with th e a p p lica tion for res cis s ion of a d efa u lt ju d gm en t gr a n ted b y m ys elf. Th e h ea r in g wa s th en p os tp on ed to th e fu r th er d a te . It wa s a greed th a t th e recu s a l a p p lica tion wou ld a ls o b e d ea lt with on th a t d a y d ep en d in g on th e ou tcom e of th e res cis s ion a p p lica tion . I s u gges ted th a t if p la in tiff con s en ted to res cis s ion th e a p p lica tion for recu s a l cou ld b e h ea r d s tr a igh t a wa y. Mr . Na th a n e h a d to ta k e in s tr u ction s on th is a n d th e m a tter wa s a ccor d in gly p os tp on ed . On th e 1 5 t h Ap r il b oth cou n s el a p p roa ch ed m e in ch a m b ers a n d in for m ed m e th a t th ey h a d a greed th a t th e ju d gm en t b e res cin d ed b y con s en t; a n d fu r th er th a t th e m a tter b e p la ced b efore a n oth er ju d ge a s s u b m itted b y th e d efed a n ts ’ cou n s el, even th ou gh th ey were s till p u r s u in g s ettlem en t n egotia tion s a n d a ttem p tin g to res olve th e m a tter ou t of cou r t. I a greed to th e a r r a n gem en t; b u t in for m ed cou n s el th a t I wou ld recu s e m ys elf n ot on th e grou n d s a d va n ced a n d a greed b y th em , n a m ely t h a t p la in tiff is m y collea gu e a n d s en ior . My view wa s th a t s u ch a r gu m en t is in cor rect a n d m is lea d in g a n d wou ld n ot con s titu te va lid gr ou n d s for m y recu s a l. In a n y even t, th a t a s p ect h a d b een con s id ered wh en th e m a tter wa s a lloca ted to m e b y th e Ch ief J u s tice a fter Ma d a m J u s tice Hla joa n e h a d recu s ed h er s elf. Th is wa s b eca u s e n ot on ly d id it in volve a collea gu e; b u t a ls o th a t s h e wa s on e of th e ju d ges refer red to in th e a r ticle. S in ce I wa s n ot a ctin g ju d ge a t th e tim e th e Hon ou r a b le Ch ief J u s tice a lloca t ed it to m e in p u r s u it of th e requ ired in d ep en d en ce a n d im p a r tia lity. My u n d ers ta n d in g is th a t a ju d ge for (or a n y oth er p res id in g officer for th a t m a tter ) is exp ected to ca r r y ou t h is d u ties in d ep en d en tly; fa ir ly a n d with ou t fea r or fa vou r a s d icta ted b y th e ju d icia l oa th . Th e fa ct th a t a n oth er ju d ge or a s en ior is a p a r ty to a n y p r oceed in gs is n ot s u fficien t gr ou n d s for recu s a l, u n les s th e p res id in g officer in d ivid u a lly or p ers on a lly feels th a t in d ea lin g with s u ch a ca s e th ere cou ld b e a lik elih ood or p os s ib ility of th eir in d ep en d en ce or fa ir ju d gm en t b ein g com p r om is ed . Th e High Cou r t ju d ges a re a ll s u b ject to th e s a m e s ta tu tes a n d r u les . Th ey equ a lly p os s es s u n lim ited ju r is d iction a n d a re exp ected to a d h ere to th e ju d ges r u les a n d a ct im p a r tia lly. Th ey ou gh t to com p ly with h igh s ta n d a r d s of d iligen ce, in d ep en d en ce a n d in tegr ity in d ea lin g with m a tter s b efore th em . Th e High Cou r t b en ch is n ot s tr a tified in a n y m a n n er . It is th erefore illogica l a n d m is lea d in g to im p os e s en ior ity r a n k in g a m on gs t ju d ges with r ega r d to ca r r yin g ou t th eir d u ties . On ly th e Ch ief J u s tice, a s h ea d of th e ju d icia r y, a s h is title a ls o m a k es it clea r , is ob viou s ly s en ior to a ll th e ju d ges . To d is tin gu is h a n d r a te th e in d ivid u a l ju d ges in term s of s en ior ity is u n s u p p or ta b le. It on ly a p p lies to m a gis tr a tes wh o a re lega lly cla s s ified b y s ta tu te. I s h ou ld n ot b e m is u n d er s tood to m ea n th a t th ere a re n o s en ior ju d ges ; or th a t p la in tiff is n ot on e of th em . It is clea r th a t ju d ges d iffer in ter m s of exp er ien ce a n d len gth of tim e on th e b en ch . It h owever h a s n o b ea r in g on th eir d u ties a n d r oles a s ju d ges . It is a d es cr ip tive referen ce to th eir s ta tu s . It is a k in to s a yin g a p er s on is “eld er ly” a s op p os ed to “old er ”. Th e a p p lica tion for recu s a l ca r r ies th e wr on g con n ota tion . I m a y m en tion a ls o th a t th e s en ior ity of th e p la in tiff wa s in fa ct a releva n t con s id era tion in m y ju d gm en t a n d a wa rd of th e 2 4 t h Feb ru a ry 2 0 1 1 . In ou r ju r is d iction on ly th e J u d ges of Ap p ea l cou ld b e cor rectly d es cr ib ed a s s en ior to ju d ge s of th e High Cou r t; b u t even th en th ey wou ld s till b e s u b ject to th e ju r is d iction of th e High Cou r t in a p p r op r ia te ca s es . To a r gu e th a t th e High Cou r t ju d ge wou ld b e u n a b le to d ea l with th e m a tter ; or a p p ea r to b e b ia s ed in s u ch a ca s e wou ld n ot b e s u s ta in a b le. Th e tes t is wh eth er th e ju d ge h a s a n in teres t in th e ou tcom e of th e ca s e a n d wh eth er th ere is a rea l lik elih ood of b ia s ; “th a t is to s a y : w e re th e re an y circu m s ta n ce s affectin g h im th a t m igh t re a s on ably cre a te a s u s p icion th a t h e w a s n ot im p artia l”. S E E BAR NAR D v J OCKE Y CLUB OF S OUTH AF R ICA 1 9 8 3 (2 ) S A 3 5 AND R OS E v J OHANNE S BUR G LOCAL R OAD TR ANS P OTATION BOAR D 1 9 4 7 (4 ) S A 2 7 2 In m y a s s es s m en t th e p r a ctica l effect of th e a r gu m en t b y d efen d a n ts wou ld b e u n a ccep ta b le a n d con tr a ry to b a s ic lega l p r in cip les . Ta k en to its logica l con clu s ion , it wou ld m ea n th a t n o ju d ge wou ld b e a b le to p res id e over a n y m a tter in volvin g a n oth er ju d ge b eca u s e th ey a re collea gu es . Th e fir s t a p p oin ted or “s en ior ” ju d ge wou ld n ot b e s u b ject to th e ju r is d iction of a ll th e oth er ju d ges ; a n d t h e s econ d in r a n k wou ld on ly h a ve h is m a tter s d eterm in ed b y on e ju d ge b eca u s e a ll th e oth er s wou ld b e ju n ior to h im . In th e s a m e wa y, ju d ges wou ld n ot b e s u b ject to th e ju r is d iction of m a gis tr a te s for b ein g s en ior in th e ju d icia l h iera r ch y. A s en ior res id en t m a gis tr a te wou ld n ot h a ve h is ca s e b efore a n y oth er th a n th e ch ief m a gis tr a te; a n d even a m on gs t th e s a m e level of m a gis tr a cy a r a n k in g cou ld b e im p os ed ; a n d it wou ld follow th a t th e on e con s id ered to b e ju n ior wou ld b e p reclu d ed fr om p res id in g over a ca s e of h is or h er s en ior . S im ila r ly m in is ters of gover n m en t, in p a r ticu la r th e Min is ter of J u s tice wou ld n ot b e s u b ject to th e or d in a ry ju r is d iction of ou r cou r ts . Th es e gr ou n d s for recu s a l, th erefore wou ld lea d to a b s u r d ity; in equ a lity a n d s elective a c ces s to ju s tice for s om e officia ls . Th is wou ld s er iou s ly viola te th e a ccep ted p r in cip les en s h r in ed in th e con s titu tion of d em ocr a tic cou n tr ies . I th erefore rejected th e grou n d s a d va n ced b y cou n s el for m y recu s a l. I h owever con s id ered th e fa ct th a t I m a d e a d eterm in a tion in th e m a tter with rega rd s to th e d efa m a tory n a tu re of th e wor d s p u b lis h ed . I ca m e to th e con clu s ion th a t th ey were d efa m a tory, n ot on ly b y gr a n tin g a m ere d efa u lt ju d gm en t, a s p r a yed , b u t b y ca refu lly con s id er in g th e effect of th e a r ticles p u b lis h ed . Th e d efen ce of th e d efen d a n ts s et ou t in th eir a ffid a vit in s u p p or t of th e res cis s ion a p p lica tion is b a s ica lly th a t th e wor d s a re n ot d efa m a tory. Th ey d o n ot a d va n ce a d efen ce s u ch a s tr u th ; fa ir com m en t in th e p u b lic in teres t; or th a t th e wor d s were n ot m ea n t to refer to p la in tiff. It is th os e d efen ces th a t cou ld u p on h ea r in g fu r th er evid en ce a t th e tr ia l, a lter m y in itia l con clu s ion . Th e d efen ce a s p res en tly s et ou t in th eir p a p er s , m erely n ega tes m y ju d gm en t, a n d b eca u s e m y con clu s ion is b a s ed on th e wor d s p u b lis h ed , I ca n n ot p os s ib ly s ee a n y evid en ce a d d u ced a t th e tr ia l th a t cou ld a b s olve th e d efen d a n ts fr om lia b ility b eca u s e th e p u b lica tion ca n n ever b e a ltered . It wou ld th erefore p reju d ice th em in th eir d efen ce if I p r oceed ed to d ea l with th e m a tter on th e m er its a fter h a vin g m a d e th e fin d in g th a t I d id a ga in s t th em . On th a t b a s is I a m p rep a red to recu s e m ys elf. In NE WE LL v CR ONJ E AND ANOTHE R 1 9 8 5 (4 ) S A 6 9 2 it wa s h eld th a t even wh ere th e ob s er va tion s of th e ju d icia l officer con flict with th os e of a litiga n t; recu s a l is n ot n eces s a r ily p erm is s ib le. In th a t even t; h is ob s erva tion s m u s t b e con veyed to th e p a r ties : “W h o th e n h av e th e opportu n ity of agree in g w ith or ch allen gin g s u ch obs e rv a tion s . S u ch a ch allen ge d oe s n ot in a n y w a y im p u gn th e pre s id in g office r’s in te grity or ren d er h is pos ition in tole rable ”. I a m h owever s a tis fied in th is ca s e th a t n o p reju d ice will res u lt to eith er p a r ty a s th e m a tter h a s n ot yet gon e to tr ia l. Con s equ en tly n o fa ilu re of ju s tice wou ld res u lt. It is fu r th er m ore a ccep ta b le b eca u s e b oth cou n s el a gree. Accor d in gly th e ju d gm en t gr a n ted in fa vou r of th e p la in tiff on th e 2 4 t h Feb ru a ry 2 0 1 1 is res cin d ed b y con s en t, with n o ord er a s to cos ts . Th e m a tter is p os tp on ed s in e d ie to a llow th e p a rties to file fu r th er p lea d in gs . I recu s e m ys elf a n d refer th e m a tter b a ck to th e Ch ief J u s tice for rea lloca tion a s h e s ees fit. I h op e th a t b oth cou n s el will b e of a s s is ta n ce to s u gges t h ow th e m a tter is to b e con clu d ed in view of th eir con s en t ord er . ______________ L. A. MOLE TE ACTING J UDGE For Pla in tiff For Defen d a n t : : Mr . Na th a n e Mr . Ph oofolo 9