Candy and 95 others v Coca Cola Fortune (Pty) Ltd (JS192/2014) [2014] ZALCJHB 320; (2015) 36 ILJ 677 (LC) (26 August 2014) per Snyman AJ.
“The matter that came before me on 8 August 2014 concerned exceptions raised by the respondent to the applicants’ statement of claim referring a dispute to the Labour Court. In the end, and what I witnessed, was a prime example of how litigation should not be conducted. This kind of conduct by persons holding themselves out to be legal representatives, and then taking on cases for a large number of individuals, and which I have been tasked to consider in this matter, actually boggles the mind, and has to be addressed. I will attend to do this in this judgment, hopefully to serve as a warning to try and prevent a re-occurrence of such a sorry state of affairs in the future”. [para 1]
LC summary:
- Exception – non compliance with Rule 6 of the Court Rules – statement of case excipiable
- Practice and procedure – mandate of legal representative challenged – power fo attorney required – application of Rule 7 of the Uniform Rules of the High Court – principles applicable
- Practice and procedure – brief of counsel by an attorney – what constitutes proper brief – counsel in effect acting on his own taking direct instructions from litigants
- Practice and procedure – citation of individual applicants to statement of case – principles stated – proper identification and citation of individual applicants required
- Costs – costs de bonis propriis against legal representative – principles stated – costs de bonis propriis awarded against counsel for applicants
- Exception – exception upheld – entire statement of claim struck out