By Bahle Gama
After being told several times by different people in the judiciary to acquire certification to formally and legaly represent people in court, former Councillor Sikhatsi Dlamini insists on turning a deaf ear.
This has resulted in the High Court ordering him to petition for a right to an audience in terms of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1964 as amended.
According to a judgement by Judge Mumcy Dlamini delivered on Thursday afternoon, Dlamini insisted that he would not petition because he was not seeking admission but exercising his constitutional rights.
RELATED: JUDGE MUMCY ORDERS 15-TEAM PREMIER LEAGUE!
The court again postponed the matter and urged counsel on behalf of the Attorney General (AG) to assist Dlamini with a precedent on petitioning for an audience.
On October 30, 2024, the court received a correspondence authorised by Dlamini demanding written reasons from the court in ordering him to petition.
Judge Mumcy stated that the court was faced with the question of whether Dlamini was entitled to appear in person without petitioning for the right of audience with the court.
From the face of the pleadings, Dlamini came by way of a certificate of urgency. He drew and signed both the certificate of urgency and the Notice of Motion, a procedure that is not allowed by the directive practice of the High Court.
“Clearly from this alone, Dlamini did not have an attorney as he was never represented in court, at all material times he appeared in person,” Judge Mumcy said.
On his first appearance, Dlamini told the court that he was appearing on behalf of the second applicant Richard Msunduza Dlamini, which is confirmed by the founding affidavit where the grounds are founded upon a property owned by Richard and Sthembile Thwala who is the second respondent in the matter.
The court noted that there is no causal link between Dlamini and the property concerned in this matter from reading the founding affidavit.
That as it may, the factual matrix of the matter is that Dlamini is dominis litis (a person who derives the benefit of a favourable judgment and is liable for the effects of an adverse judgment). He initiated the proceedings.
RELATED: Women Farmer program created to close the unemployment gap
The court stated that had Dlamini been a respondent or defendant, the court would not have called for him to petition for the right of the audience as it would have been his constitutional right to defend himself.
Judge Mumcy noted that the position of the law is promulgated under Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1964 as amended.
It states that “Any person who wishes to be admitted and enrolled as a legal practitioner, or who wishes to be granted a right of audience in any particular case shall, by written petition apply to the High Court after serving a copy to the AG and the Secretary of the Law Society as provided by Section 30.”
From the Section, Dlamini cannot appear irrespective of whether he is representing his interest or not without the right of the audience which ought to be granted under the petition from him.
“For that reason, I upheld the point in lilime and ordered Dlamini to petition for the right of the audience in terms of the Act,” said the judge.
