The
respondent prayed for costs on an attorney-client scale.
It
was submitted that the application was frivolous and vexatious. It
was further submitted that between December 2014 and 13 January 2015,
the applicant had filed six applications in the Labour Court and in
this Court. In all those cases, the respondent has been put out of
pocket ...
The
respondent prayed for costs on an attorney-client scale.
It
was submitted that the application was frivolous and vexatious. It
was further submitted that between December 2014 and 13 January 2015,
the applicant had filed six applications in the Labour Court and in
this Court. In all those cases, the respondent has been put out of
pocket in order to defend the applications. The present application
is an addition to the list.
The
applicant submitted that she was entitled to protect her rights as
best as she can. The applications alluded to were filed with the
intention to do so.
Whilst
the applicant is indeed so entitled, it is apparent that the present
application is frivolous as it is unfounded. I am inclined to agree
with the respondent that the multiplicity of the applications and
actions is indicative of vexacity.
On
18 June 2014, the applicant issued summons in this court in case
number HC4986/14 claiming damages for shock, pain and suffering and
post-traumatic distress arising from the sexual harassment. This was
so notwithstanding the fact the arbitral award provided for damages
that the applicant suffered as a result of the sexual harassment. The
respondent did not file its appearance to defend timeously. It then
filed an application for condonation for late filing of appearance to
defend. On 16 September 2014, the applicant filed an urgent chamber
application, in case number HC8163/14, requesting urgent hearing of
the application for condonation. The application was granted. In
paragraph 11 of the founding affidavit, she stated as follows:
“I
have collapsed thrice and been taken to Michael Gelfand 24 hours
Emergency Rooms on 3rd
July 2014. On the second occasion I was rushed to Trauma Centre
(sic),
24 hour Emergency Rooms on the 23rd
of August 2014 and on the 6th
of September, 2014. On the 8th
of September 2014, I was again taken ill and was treated at Trauma
Centre, 24 hour Emergency Rooms. I had a sleepless night on the 14th
of September 2014 and was violently sick and was transported to
Michael Gelfand 24 hours Emergency Rooms on the 15th
of September 2014 and was treated whilst on bed C2.- See Annexure
'D2' - Annexture 'D5'.”
In
the present application, in paragraph 21 of the founding affidavit,
the applicant averred that:
“I
have collapsed twice and been taken to Michael Gelfand 24 hours
Emergency Rooms on 25th
of December 2014. On the second occasion I was rushed to Trauma
Centre (sic),
24 hour Emergency Rooms on the 28th
of December 2014 and the following procedure were carried out…,. On
the 7th
of February 2015 and was treated whilst on bed 4.- See Annexure
'D2'-Annexture 'D5'.”
In
the urgent chamber application in case number HC5/15, filed on 2
January 2015, the applicant sought the urgent hearing of case number
HC11087/14 and case number HC11088/14. The first case is a chamber
application for condonation of late application for leave to appeal
against the decision in case number 4986/14. The second case is a
chamber application for leave to appeal against the decision in
HC4986/14.
The
applicant filed yet another urgent chamber application in the Labour
Court, on 13 January 2015, in case number LC/H/App/22/28/15. The
applicant was seeking an order for the urgent hearing of cases in
LC/H/APP/15/15 and LC/H/APP322/14 (being the appeals filed by the
respondent against the arbitral award and the quantification). The
applicant relied on similar averments as in the present matter as a
basis for urgency in case number HC5/15 and case number
LC/H/App/22/28/15. The applicant did not dispute that the urgent
chamber application in the Labour Court was a rehash of the urgent
chamber application in this court in case number HC5/15.
The
applicant filed yet another application in the Labour Court
(application to dismiss the application of an Arbitral Award Pending
Finalisation of Appeal for Want of Prosecution (sic))
on 8 January 2015. The application that she made during the hearing
of this application, to have an unclear matter referred to the
Constitutional Court, equally exhibited vexacity.
The
urgent chamber applications are preceded by the applicant receiving
urgent medical attention. In each case, the applicant lives another
day to file another application. The respondent has been responding
to the avalanche of applications incurring costs in the process.
The
harm caused by these multiple applications is not only to the
respondent. It extends to the administration of justice. The courts
are being laden with unfounded applications. The applicant exhibited
a good understanding of the law despite of being a self-actor. She,
in fact, filed heads of argument (in which she enunciated principles
of law supported by case authorities) with case number HC05/15 and
the present case. The heads of argument would be the envy of some
legal practitioners. However, if left unabated, the harm that she is
causing will be immeasurable. She risks, at the rate that she is
going, having an order for perpetual silence issued against her.
In
the result, this, in my view, is a case that warrants an order for
punitive costs….,.
1….,.
2….,.
3.
The applicant be and is hereby ordered to pay costs on an
attorney-client scale.
