Supreme Court registrar opposes attorney, her company’s application
MBABANE – 7he 6upreme &ourt registrar is oppos ing the application filed by an attorney and her company at the High &ourt to direct a 6upreme &ourt assistant registrar to accept heads of argument the latter said were filed out of time.
7he registrar, who is represented by attorneys from 5obinson %ertram, will file her answering papers on Monday and the matter will be argued ne[t 7hursday before -udge Ma[ine Langwenya.
)ikile Mthembu and her company, Lobulawu ,nYestments 3ty Ltd are seeking an order directing the regis trar to accept their heads of argument dated $ugust , .
AFFIDAVIT
7he assistant registrar, according to Lawyer $]i Hlatshwako, who deposed to the founding affidaYit and represents )ikile Mthembu and Lobulawu ,nYestments in a pending appeal, refused to receiYe the heads of argument because they were allegedly being filed out of time.
2ther respondents in the matter are the attorney general and 1gwane Mills trading as )eedmaster 6wa]i land.
7he heads of argument are in re spect of an appeal filed by Lobulawu ,nYestments and Mthembu, who are the first and second applicants, after the High &ourt granted a default judgment that Lobulawu and Mthem bu should pay 1gwane Mills 3ty , trading as )eedmaster 6wa]iland for animal feed.
)eedmaster had claimed (
against Lobulawu ,nYestments, and the latter disputed an amount of ( from the claim.
SURETY
)eedmaster 6wa]iland had supplied Lobulawu ,nYestments with chicken feed in . Mthembu was said to haYe stood as surety and co principal debtor as per the contract concluded by the parties.
-udge M]wandile )akud]e granted )eedmaster 6wa]iland¶s relief in a summary judgment.
Lobulawu and Mthembu were ag grieYed about the judgment and ap proached the 6upreme &ourt. 7he 6upreme &ourt found triable issues around the disputed amount of (
and referred the matter back to the High &ourt.
-udge =onke Magagula heard the matter on March , and granted a default judgment on the sum of ( in faYour of )eedmaster 6wa]iland.
7he present appeal is against the judgment of -udge Magagula. 7he issue is whether -udge Magagula was justified in grating the default judg ment on March , and whether his judgment is Yalid.
,n the urgent application before court, Hlatshwako, said after the default judgment had been issued by -udge Mgagula, Lobulawu and Mthembu filed an appeal as well as the record of proceedings, which were accepted by the 6upreme &ourt registrar on May , .
APPEAL
Hlatshwako told the court that the applicants Lobulawu and Mthembu were under legal duty in terms of the &ourt of $ppeal 5ules, , to there after file main heads of argument not later than days before the hearing of the appeal.
7he appeal is schedule to be heard on 6eptember , . $ccording to Hlatshwako, on $ugust , , he was instructed by the applicants to file with the registrar copies of the heads of argument as per the 5ule of the 5ules.
He alleged that he did not find the personnel at the registry office in the afternoon of $ugust , and he left the papers there.
Hlatshwako submitted that on the following day, he proceeded to the registry and the assistant registrar µflatly refused to accept the copies of the applicants¶ heads of argument contenting that they were being filed out of time¶.
He argued that the last date of the filing of the heads of argument was $ugust , and µit is e[actly on $ugust , that the assistant registrar rejected the heads without legal or factual basis¶.
AUTHORISING
³, tried talking the assistant registrar into accepting the papers as there was no law authorising her not to accept the court process, being the heads, but she did not budge, so , decided to leaYe with the copies,´ said Hlat shwako.
He informed the court that his cli ents were entitled to be heard by the 6upreme &ourt as of right. He said the right to appeal was an intrinsic feature of the right to a fair hearing µwhich is non derogable in terms of 6ection of the &onstitution¶.