“Courts are not theatres of amusement to elevate hedonism. [They] must be respected by their officers and those privileged to have the right of audience.”

With this stinging rebuke, acting labour court judge Smanga Sethene laid into the University of SA and the department of justice in two applications brought separately for relief but dealt within one judgment describing them as “hopeless cases”.

Sethene ordered that lawyers who represented Unisa and the department in the court cases should not be paid for their services, striking both cases off the roll due to lack of urgency. He said if they had already been paid they should pay back the money to both institutions within 60 days of the order. Sethene also ordered that the Legal Practice Council probe the conduct of Prof Vuyo Ntsangane Peach, the acting director of legal services at Unisa, on whether he sought to mislead the court.

He said he wrote a consolidated judgment as both urgent “applications were hopeless in law and facts”.

Sethene further ordered the state attorney to investigate the conduct of the instructing attorney who acted on behalf of the justice department in Limpopo to establish if a section the public finance management act was contravened.

“Where a hopeless case is brought with the assistance of the advocate, the advocate must either be bringing it in the knowledge that it is hopeless [and therefore assisting in an abuse], or believing that it is not hopeless [and therefore incompetent] or not caring whether it is hopeless [and therefore guilty or recklessness or gross negligence]," Sethene said quoting a law review.

“In any of these cases the conduct of the advocate warrants action being taken by the court.”

The first case relates to non-renewal of a contract of Unisa’s vice-principal of operations and facilities Dr Marcia Socikwa. In January 2021 the university council decided not to renew her five year-year fixed-term contract however, she believed legitimate expectation was created that it would be renewed.

After her employment contract was terminated, Socikwa approached the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, which eventually awarded her R1,271,964 (equivalent of six months’ pay) after finding that her dismissal was substantially and procedurally unfair.

However, 12 weeks after receiving an arbitration award, according to the judgment, Unisa filed a review application but never acted on it until last month when the sheriff arrived at the institution to attach its movable property for a sale of execution.

“The record of arbitration proceedings was obtained, transcribed and completed on March 10 2023, which about 85 days since it was obtained in this court. During the time period set out above, Unisa never sought the indulgence of Socikwa to consent for the late filing of the record. Unisa never even bothered to calculate that its review has been deemed withdrawn effective from February 1 2023... Unisa never applied to this court for its review application to be rescuscited,” said Sethene.

Unisa filed this application and pleaded that it be heard on May 18 2023.

Socikwa opposed Unisa’s court application, arguing the urgency was self-created and the review application was deemed withdrawn on February 1.

In the department of justice case, Polokwane magistrate’s court chief administrative clerk Elelwane Asnath Mavhunga was dismissed after she allegedly posted derogatory statements against the court manager.

She approached the bargaining council which found that her dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair and ordered her reinstatement effective from October 1 2021.

The department filed an urgent application to stay the execution of the arbitration award but never pursued, according to the judgment.

On May 10 2023, the sheriff attended to the premises of the department remove vehicles by no later than May 15 2023 which forced them to approach the Labour Court for relief on an urgent basis.

Sethene said for both applications, Unisa and the department, urgency was self-created “for reasons that are inexplicable, devoid of rationality and candour”. He said the conduct of both Unisa and the department “highlights that the pervasiveness of ineptitude within the organs of state is a brazen assault on the rule of law and a travesty of justice to the citizens”. Quoting Shakespeare, Sethene said “both applicants were hoisted with their own petard”

He added: “Both applicants, powered by prevalence of ineptitude impaired them to believe that there was hope in their hopeless urgent applications.”