Tempers flare at Mdluli hearing

Unfortunately I am damn sure that the instructions were in effect to obfuscate and stall which is exactly what counsel did - and I am sure the judge knew that was the approach based on the proceedings in chambers. The papers probably contain 15 dozen challenges to jurisdiction and alleged non-compliance with the rules of court (despite the courts broad powers to condone and the inevitability that the Notice of Motion from FUL would have included a condonation prayer) and so on. I get the idea that Justice Murphey is sitting with this matter as a sort of "track" issue which SAPS is objecting to.

Personally I dislike contempt before a court being presided over by the judicial officer to whom contempt was shown. The Pretoria building should actually have a magistrate on roll for contempt (basically a cycle of magistrates who arrive on shift at 7:30 until 18:30 and when not presiding in a contempt matter are able to catch up on outstanding judgments) and in the instance the DJP postponing the proceeding is probably best. Hopefully contempt charges against the advocate will either be brought or the matter referred to the relevant society.
 
Paul Hjul said:
Unfortunately I am damn sure that the instructions were in effect to obfuscate and stall which is exactly what counsel did - and I am sure the judge knew that was the approach based on the proceedings in chambers. The papers probably contain 15 dozen challenges to jurisdiction and alleged non-compliance with the rules of court (despite the courts broad powers to condone and the inevitability that the Notice of Motion from FUL would have included a condonation prayer) and so on. I get the idea that Justice Murphey is sitting with this matter as a sort of "track" issue which SAPS is objecting to.

Personally I dislike contempt before a court being presided over by the judicial officer to whom contempt was shown. The Pretoria building should actually have a magistrate on roll for contempt (basically a cycle of magistrates who arrive on shift at 7:30 until 18:30 and when not presiding in a contempt matter are able to catch up on outstanding judgments) and in the instance the DJP postponing the proceeding is probably best. Hopefully contempt charges against the advocate will either be brought or the matter referred to the relevant society.
Click to expand...

The advocate did question if the process of the interdict being extended was being adhered to, just prior to the exchange in question, so perhaps thats the reason why we have such a simple matter being made into such a big issue. So it looks like this friction started first in the chambers, which makes things very complicated. I don't think the advocate will be reported, or complaint laid against the judge. Both of them acted disorderly. I think the deputy judge presidet will sit them down and crack the whip, and that will be the end of it.

My prediction is that if Murphy grants leave to appeal then the appeal will be upheld. Thats a very dangerous territory Murphy went into.
 
the judge didn't act disorderly at all
the entire objection from SAPS is frivolous and scurrilous to the dignity of the court
 
Guys I dont think RZA is trolling, he is entitled to believe in God and believe that what some do is against that belief.
I do still think that this advocate showed no respect for the Judge, th court or anyone else for that matter. Thats all there is to it
 
marine1 said:
I think Mduli is a ton of dirt on the top dogs in the ANC and this is why he is being protected.
Click to expand...
FTFY

Mduli and Zuma and a couple of other bros are the fixers who not only know where the bodies are but put a lot of them there
 
People are born in sin
Click to expand...

That's your opinion which you are welcome to have - just don't state it as a fact.

Regardless of this lawyer's colour he was rude, arrogant and the kind of self-important pompous git that needs to be put in his place.
 
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Mokhari-to-complain-over-judge-20131025

Johannesburg - Senior counsel William Mokhari on Friday vowed to lay a complaint of misconduct against Judge John Murphy after they clashed in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria.

Mokhari said he would approach the Judicial Conduct Committee about Murphy's conduct in court and also in his chambers.

"I will make further comment when I have filed the complaint early next week," he said.

The two argued on Thursday over whether former police crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli should return to work.

Murphy was hearing an application by the SA Police Service (SAPS) and the National Director of Public Prosecutions for leave to appeal against an earlier ruling in favour of lobby group Freedom Under Law (FUL).

The ruling set aside a decision to reinstate Mdluli and withdraw criminal and disciplinary charges against him.

FUL did not oppose the application for leave to appeal provided that the judge ordered that Mdluli not be reinstated pending the outcome of the appeal.

Mokhari, for the SAPS, argued on Thursday that the proviso amounted to an application, which meant FUL did not follow court process.

Such an application needed to be filed correctly with the court, he said.

"I have never heard of an application, which is a substantial application like this... where a judge is already chosen," Mokhari said.

"This is an application which relates not to the order which has been granted by your lordship. It is an application which relates to an order granted by your brother [Judge Makhoba in 2012]."

Murphy asked if the national police commissioner was opposed to the interdict being kept in place.

"Does the commissioner want General Mdluli to go back to work?" Murphy asked.

Mokhari replied: "That is presumptuous and I will not respond to the question."

Murphy then asked: "How dare you say that to me Mr Mokhari? You are obliged to respond to me."

"It is presumptuous because it puts the carts before the horses. It will be improper for me to respond to that question," Mokhari said.

Murphy told Mokhari to "take a seat" and that he did not wish to hear him anymore. Mokhari refused. Murphy adjourned the court.

About an hour later, Deputy Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba came in and postponed the matter indefinitely.

Mdluli was suspended amid charges of fraud and corruption, and charges relating to the murder of his ex-lover's husband. An inquest cleared him of any involvement in the murder. The charges of fraud and corruption were also later withdrawn.

He was reinstated, but was again suspended in 2012 pending the court application to review the withdrawal of the criminal and disciplinary charges against him.

- SAPA
Click to expand...

Things are going to get interesting right about now for this character I think.
 
rza said:
Accusing an advocate of incompetence based on his race is not taking anything out of context. Racism is a sickness that needs to be flushed out of the society, so don't expect me to sit by and let it be like the mods are doing.
Click to expand...

Never, ever approach a bull from the front,
a horse from the rear,
or an idiot from any direction.
 
Mokhari's intention to lodge a complaint of misconduct with the JSC is very interesting. I can see Murphy being reprimanded here, for refusing the counsel to make/complete his submissions. I still don't understand how this matter was going to end had the court not being adjourned. Let's say the judge didn't adjourn the court and Mokhari sat down, would the judge had went back to Mokhari to complete his submissions, or what was he going to do next? The court couldn't have been adjourned for a judgement without the applicant making his submissions. Exactly what was the thinking behind the judge's order for Mokhari to sit down?
 
Crowley said:
The lack of respect shown by Mokhari most probably.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but he could have cited him for being in contempt of court if he felt his behaviour was unwarranted. But if he tells Mokhari to sits down then when is he supposed to make his submissions? And how do you continue the application without submissions from the main applicants? I was hoping nobody was going to lay a complaint to the JSC/Bar. These lawyers/judges are really tarnishing the image of the profession, which is already at the lowest point.
 
rza said:
Mokhari's intention to lodge a complaint of misconduct with the JSC is very interesting. I can see Murphy being reprimanded here, for refusing the counsel to make/complete his submissions. I still don't understand how this matter was going to end had the court not being adjourned. Let's say the judge didn't adjourn the court and Mokhari sat down, would the judge had went back to Mokhari to complete his submissions, or what was he going to do next? The court couldn't have been adjourned for a judgement without the applicant making his submissions. Exactly what was the thinking behind the judge's order for Mokhari to sit down?
Click to expand...

Maybe Murphy will get reprimanded, but Mokhari is skirting very close to being in Contempt of Court, and being reported to whatever the official association is.
 
rza said:
Mokhari's intention to lodge a complaint of misconduct with the JSC is very interesting. I can see Murphy being reprimanded here, for refusing the counsel to make/complete his submissions. I still don't understand how this matter was going to end had the court not being adjourned. Let's say the judge didn't adjourn the court and Mokhari sat down, would the judge had went back to Mokhari to complete his submissions, or what was he going to do next? The court couldn't have been adjourned for a judgement without the applicant making his submissions. Exactly what was the thinking behind the judge's order for Mokhari to sit down?
Click to expand...
The judge posed a simple direct and poignant question that needed to be addressed before the remainder of counsel's submissions. By refusing to answer the question the judge could have dismissed the application - and there is a trove of precedent on this: if counsel fails to address an in limine issue the application may be dismissed without further interrogation of the merits

So no the thinking was to have Mokhari sit down and to then set out the issue which counsel had to address for the application to continue. Mokhari knew he would not be able to accomplish that and so sought to disrupt the court. His answer could have been that he has no knowledge of what his clients actual wishes are but that his instructions are X. However he was going to then have to steer down a road he wouldn't like as to the practical effects of the application.
 
Paul Hjul said:
Mokhari knew he would not be able to accomplish that and so sought to disrupt the court. His answer could have been that he has no knowledge of what his clients actual wishes are but that his instructions are X. However he was going to then have to steer down a road he wouldn't like as to the practical effects of the application.
Click to expand...

Supposition, of course, but an indication that Mokhari should have been held in Contempt of Court.

Or is it only in the US that lawyers get dragged out of court in handcuffs and thrown into a cell ?
 
as I've put out earlier I have a general dislike for a summary contempt approach and really do feel that especially at the Pretoria court - mostly because of its size - a contempt master is needed. Unfortunately so long as the Minister responsible for Justice has a specific set of agenda that does not include serving the courts we are in trouble though.

some courts have had a contempt fine in place for cellphones going off and so on
 
Paul Hjul said:
The judge posed a simple direct and poignant question that needed to be addressed before the remainder of counsel's submissions. By refusing to answer the question the judge could have dismissed the application - and there is a trove of precedent on this: if counsel fails to address an in limine issue the application may be dismissed without further interrogation of the merits

So no the thinking was to have Mokhari sit down and to then set out the issue which counsel had to address for the application to continue. Mokhari knew he would not be able to accomplish that and so sought to disrupt the court. His answer could have been that he has no knowledge of what his clients actual wishes are but that his instructions are X. However he was going to then have to steer down a road he wouldn't like as to the practical effects of the application.
Click to expand...

I think it's clear that he didn't have an answer to the question, but his point is that court process was not followed by dealing with the interdict as it should be a separate court case. Maybe that's what started this whole scuffle, because he presented the judge as not knowing what he's doing. But then again, what does that question have to do with the leave to appeal, or the submissions thereof? Mokhari is definitely wrong in the way he answered the question, especially the tone, but he definitely had to be allowed to make submissions on the main matter at hand - leave to appeal, not the interdict which was a side show.

Both guys are immature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X