About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZAGPJHC 429
|
|
Dowdle v Pool (40623/2014) [2014] ZAGPJHC 429 (13 November 2014)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION
CASE NO: 40623/2014
DATE: 13 NOVEMBER 2015
In the matter between:
DOWDLE,
KEVIN
.............................................................................................................
APPLICANT
AND
ADVOCATE DM
POOL
................................................................................................
RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
WEINER J:
1) When this matter came before me, an
application for my recusal was made based upon the fact that I have a
vested interest in
protecting the status of presiding officers, to
the detriment of the applicant. I do not believe that this lays out
any basis for
my recusal and the recusal application is refused.
2) The applicant has brought an
application as a matter of urgency, in terms of which he cites
advocate DM Poole, who was formerly
a magistrate, as the Respondent.
The Applicant requests that the criminal prosecution which has been
set down for the 14th of November
2014, be stayed until such time as
his leave to appeal against the refusal of the magistrate (the first
respondent) to recuse himself,
has been determined. There is a
dispute in regard to what the reason is that the appeal has not yet
been heard.
3) Be that as it may, this is an
application in which the relevant authorities, which would include
the Director of Public Prosecutions
(“DPP”), and others,
such as the complainant in the criminal prosecution, who may have an
interest in this matter,
should be cited. In addition, the respondent
has been cited in his personal capacity and not in his capacity as
magistrate in this
matter.
4) For this reason, I offered the
applicant the opportunity to serve on the DPP and other interested
parties so that their interests
and views could be placed before the
court. I would then have dealt with the matter on that basis. The
Applicant refused the invitation.
He stated that he could not do so
in a short period of time.
5) Unfortunately the fact that there is
only a short period of time is the applicant’s fault, because
he should have cited
them in the first place. Accordingly, although
I was prepared to help the applicant to a certain extent, it is
impossible for
me to make an order against this respondent which
would compel the DPP to stay the prosecution which is set down for
the 14th of
November 2014.
6) The application is accordingly
dismissed with costs.
WEINER J
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant: Appeared In Person
For Respondent: Rudi Pottas
Instructed By: Rudi Pottas
Attorneys
Date Of Hearing: 13 November 2014
Date Of Judgment: 13 November 2014