About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 90
|
|
Chitme v Minister of Correctional Services and Another (74301/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 90 (17 February 2015)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(
GAUTENG
DIVISION,PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 74301/13
DATE: 17 FEBRUARY
2015
IN THE MATTER
BETWEEN
CASPER RAY
CHITEME
.....................................................................................................
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF
CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES
.........................................................
First
Respondent
CHAIRPERSON OF
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR
CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES
..............................................................................
Second
Respondent
JUDGMENT
LEGODI, J
[1] On the 5
February 2015 I made an order as follows:
“
1.
The matter is postponed sine die;
2. The Parole
Board and Case Management Committee of Leeukop Prison are ordered to
submit within 30 days of this order a new profile
for the applicant
to the second respondent.
3. The second
respondent is ordered to within 30 days after receipt of the above
mentioned profile to make a new recommendation
to the first
respondent for the applicant’s possible placement on parole.
4. The first
respondent is ordered to make a decision with regard to the
applicant’s placement on parole within 30 days of
having
received the recommendation of the second respondent”.
[2] I must
immediately say that in the event the order was not brought to the
attention of the Parole Board and Case Management
Committee from the
date the order was made, that is, 15 February 2015, it must then
comply with the order within 30 days from the
date on which it is
brought to its attention.
[3] Having made the
order as indicated in paragraph 1 above, I reserved judgment on the
issue of costs. I now turn to deal with
the issue of costs. On Monday
the 2 February 2015, the matter could not proceed, because the
respondents’ heads of argument
were only served that morning.
That was contrary to the practice directives. As a result, the matter
was stood down until 5 February
2015 to enable both the court and the
applicant to read the heads of argument.
[4] I was
particularly not impressed with the filing of heads on the date of
hearing. For that, I ordered the State Attorney to
file an affidavit
to explain why there has not been compliance. The affidavit has been
filed and I do not intend taking the issue
any further. It suffices
to mention that many of the State Attorney’s matters are not
properly handled. This should be a
matter of great concern to this
court and to the public at large, as it results in unnecessary legal
costs.
[5] Coming back to
the issue of costs, there can be no doubt that the defendant should
be held liable for the wasted costs occasioned
by the stand down on
the 2 February 2015. In my view, the applicant should not be placed
out of pocket due to the inefficiency
in the office of the State
Attorney. For example, the non-compliance with the rules and practice
directives were blamed on lack
of capacity and involvement of
inexperienced staff, some of whom had just completed schooling. An
order for costs on an attorney
and client scale for the wasted costs
occasioned by the stand down on the 2 February 2015 would be fair.
[6] The costs for
the 5 February 2015 should be dealt with like any other costs in the
application. The applicant wanted review
and setting aside of the
decision by the Minister of Correctional Services in terms of which
the applicant’s request to be
placed on parole was refused. An
order to this effect has not been made. Instead, I proposed the draft
order quoted in paragraph
1 of this judgment. In doing so, I was
persuaded by my prima facie of the matter.
[7] However, counsel
for the applicant sought to suggest that the respondents should be
held liable for the costs incurred after
delivery of his replying
affidavit. In that affidavit, a referral was suggested, as an
alternative, without abandoning the main
relief sought. Secondly, a
relief for costs on an attorney and client scale was never abandoned.
Therefore it cannot be said that
the respondents should have conceded
to referral at an earlier stage. For this, it would only be fair for
each party to pay his
or her own costs.
[8] Consequently, an
order is hereby made as follows:
8.1 The respondents
to pay to the applicant wasted costs occasioned by the stand down of
the matter on 2 February 2015, the one
paying the other to be
absolved.
8.2 Such costs be on
an attorney and client scale including the costs of two counsel.
8.3 As regards to
other costs in the proceedings, each party to pay his or her own
costs.
JUDGE M F LEGODI
JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
FOR THE APPLICANT:
ADV. K FRITZROY
INSTRUCTED BY:
JULIAN KNIGHT & ASSOCIATES
129 Murray Street,
BROOKLYN, PRETORIA
REF: Mr Knight/C 100
TEL: 012 346 1463
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
ADV. MTK MOERANE SC & E B NDEBELE
INSTRUCTED BY: THE
STATE ATTORNEY
316 Salu Building,
Cnr
Francis Baard & Thabo Sehume Streets
PRETORIA
0002
REF: S RABAMBI
8676/13/Z57
TEL: 012 309 1674
Matter heard on:
5FEBRUAY2015
Judgment Handed
down: 17 FEBRUARY 2015