It is necessary to weigh the balance of convenience between the need for a judicial officer to manage his or her court by, for instance, insisting on the continuation of a scheduled hearing in the interests of justice and the efficient administration of justice, against fairness and the delivery of ...
It is necessary to weigh the balance of convenience between the need for a judicial officer to manage his or her court by, for instance, insisting on the continuation of a scheduled hearing in the interests of justice and the efficient administration of justice, against fairness and the delivery of quality justice.
In Matapo & Ors v Bhila NO & Anor 2010 (1) ZLR 321 (H), UCHENA J stated as follows:
“I entirely agree with HARMS JA's comments, in Take & Save Trading CC & Ors v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2004 (4) SA 1 (SCA), on the judicial officer's responsibilities in the management of cases that come before them for trial or preparation for trial.
I would only add that this equally applies to magistrates, who in fact preside over more cases than judges.
The need for firm control of proceedings is called for, as a supine approach will result in avoidable backlogs. The need for efficient court management by judicial officers must, however, give in to the delivery of quality justice, which must be seen to be done.
In short, a judicial officer must be firm and fair, allowing genuine applications for postponement, and turning down those made for dilatory purposes.”
