Judge’s case for damages nears end

FORMER KwaZuluNatal Judge-President Chiman Patel was “at the peak of his career and a few years from retiring with an unblemished record of service to the judiciary and legal profession” when he was forced to hang up his robes, due – in part – to the stress of being prosecuted.

However, the charges were withdrawn, without so much as an apology to the “pillar of the community”.

These are some of the submissions Judge Patel’s legal team is to make today, when the final arguments in his civil case against the State are expected to be heard in the Durban High Court.

In 2013, crimen injuria charges were levelled against him after he reprimanded a court clerk in his chambers.

The clerk, Lindiwe Nxele, claimed Judge Patel shouted at her, pointed a finger at her and called her “nonsense, trash, rubbish and useless”.

A year later, he was ordered to court but, on the day his trial was supposed to start, the charges were withdrawn.

Now the judge, represented by Norton Rose Fulbright, is suing for malicious prosecution. He is claiming R1.5 million in damages.

The judge has admitted to using the word “rubbish”, but maintains that it was not directed at Nxele and denied making any insulting utterances to her.

The trial got under way in December with a judge called in from another provincial division to preside over the case.

Nxele took the stand during proceedings.

Judge Patel’s lawyers are expected to argue that her evidence was unclear and unsatisfactory and that she put forward “no less than eight contradictory versions” regarding the events that led to her laying the charges against him.

They are also expected to argue that the provincial head of prosecutions, advocate Moipone Noko, was not justified in pursuing charges against the judge and that she was “hellbent” on prosecuting him, regardless of the consequences.

Divert

The State’s legal team, however, is expected to argue that by questioning the veracity of Nxele’s evidence, the judge’s lawyers are trying to divert attention from the real issue.

They maintain that his use of the word “rubbish” that day did impair Nxele’s dignity and that she had grounds to believe that he had committed crimen injuria.

In respect of Noko, who also took the stand during proceedings, the State’s lawyers are expected to argue that she truly believed that there was a reasonable prospect of successful prosecution. The State avers that there was no damage to the judge’s reputation and that reports in the press indicated that most people did not believe he was guilty anyway.

It also disputes the notion that his early retirement was due to the criminal case and says that, on his own version, he had health problems.

The State is submitting that if the court were to find in Judge Patel’s favour, a much lesser monetary claim should be ordered by the court rather than the R1.5m claim made in court papers.