IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 

HELD AT JOHANNESBURG

CASE NO J5180/00
In the matter between :

NTSIMANE MEKGWE & THOMAS MUDAU				 Applicant

and

EDUSAF									           Respondent

______________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________

WAGLAY J

1.	This   matter  was   set  down   for   trial  for   today.  When  the trial roll  call  was called, as  is   the  practice  in  this  court, at  9h45   there  was  no  appearance   on behalf of the respondent. I  then  stood  the  matter  down.

2.	I was later  advised that the respondent’s attorneys  had  forwarded  letters  to  this court advising that it had withdrawn as attorneys of record.

3.	The letters  record the following :

Letter 1

“1	The above matter refers 

2	We  hereby  wish  to  inform  you  that  Hofmeyr  Hebstein  & 

2

Gihwala  Inc  hereby  withdraws  as  the  respondent’s   attorneys  of  record herein.”

Letter 2

1.	We encloses herewith  two  telefaxes  for  the  court  file;  the contents  whereof  are  self  explanatory.

2.	The   matter  is  on  the  roll  for   today, 26  November  2001.

3.	The   telephone  and  fax  number  of  the  S A Scooter   and Transport  Workers  Union  is  continuously  engaged.

4.	The  Labour  Court’s  telephone  number  rings  continuously and nobody answers.”

4.	Letter 1 was also  forwarded to the applicants representative.

5.	I am surprised that a   legal representative could believe that by simply forwarding a letter on the date of hearing its responsibility comes  to  an end. Where  a  matter has been set down for trial it is incumbent  on  the  legal  representative  to  ensure that it timeously decides whether or not it shall assist the party it has undertaken to represent, where it is unable to decide prior  to  the  date  of the  trial  it  is obliged to come to court and ask the court to be excused . It  cannot  simply  stay  away  as has been done in  this matter. To  stay  away  is  to  show  contempt  for  the  court  and  this behavior shall  not and will not be tolerated.

6.	Furthermore  I   fail  to   understand   the   practice  of  writing  letters to the court.

3

Are  Judges  suppose to  read  these  letters ?  The court is not here to entertain any correspondence. Letters   written   to  the  court  should  and  will  be  disregarded. Attorneys  may correspond with the registrar  but not with the court.

7.	Here the attorney did  not have the  courtesy  of  filing  a Notice  of Withdrawal as Attorney’s  of  record  nor  is  there  anything  to  indicate  to me that  its  client   is aware that the trial is to be heard today.

8.	If attorneys fail to withdraw timeously which should in my view  be  at least   five working days before a  hearing they must present themselves in  court  and  ask  to be excused . Where attorneys   withdraw  timeously   they   must  still  satisfy   this  court,  albeit   by   simply  recording   on  their  Notice,  that   they   have   advised their clients of the  date  of  hearing  and  provide   proof  of  service of  the notice upon their  client.

9.	Since the attorneys mentioned above have done nothing  in  this  matter  to  satisfy me   that  the  client  was  aware  of the trial being heard today,  I  have  decided to postpone the matter sine die. I   believe  that  the  attorneys   should  therefore  pay  the  costs  de bonis propiris  but before making   such  a  costs order , I will  afford them  an  opportunity  to  make  such  submission  as  they  deem  expedient  as  to why this  court should not make such an order.

10.	The order of this  court is therefore :

1.	That the  matter is postponed sine die.

4

2.	That  Attorneys    Hofmeyr   Herbstein   and   Gihwala   Inc (Hofmeyers)   are  called  upon  to  show  cause  why,  on  6 February 2002 at 10h00, they should not be ordered  to  pay the costs occasioned by this postponement de bonis propiris 

3.	That   Hofmeyers must  at  the  same  day (6/02/02) provide  an   explanation   on   affidavit, for  their  conduct 
in this matter  relating  to  their  failure  to  attend  court  on 26 November 2001.

________________
WAGLAY .J
26/11/2001