Dlodlo v Minster of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (16306/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 807 (19 October 2022)
The court found that the applicant had previously brought an application seeking the same relief, which was dismissed by Matojane J. The applicant did not appeal or review that judgment. The doctrine of res judicata applies, barring the applicant from re-litigating the same issue between the same parties. The point...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] ZAGPJHC 807
- Parties
- Applicant: Molefe Rufaro Mthulisi Dlodlo; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Rules Board for Courts of Law
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 16306/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Application / Application for Declaratory Order; Point in Limine (res Judicata) Determined
- Outcome
- Application dismissed on grounds of res judicata; costs awarded against applicant.
- Judges
- Dlamini
- Legal Topics
- Costs Orders, Self Represented Litigants, Res Judicata, Declaratory Relief
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Molefe Rufaro Mthulisi Dlodlo
Applicant
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Respondent
Rules Board for Courts of Law
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Application / Application for Declaratory Order; Point in Limine (res Judicata) Determined
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the restriction on awarding costs orders to successful self-represented litigants is unconstitutional.
- 2 Whether the application is barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to a previous judgment on the same issue.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had previously brought an application seeking the same relief, which was dismissed by Matojane J. The applicant did not appeal or review that judgment. The doctrine of res judicata applies, barring the applicant from re-litigating the same issue between the same parties. The point in limine raised by the respondents was upheld, and the application was dismissed with costs on an attorney and own client scale.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed on grounds of res judicata; costs awarded against applicant.
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application on the scale between attorney and own client.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
50 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case no.: 16306/2022
REPORTABLE: NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED.
19/10/2022
In the matter between:
MOLEFE RUFARO MTHULISI DLODLO
Applicant
And
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL 1st Respondent
DEVELOPMENT
THE RULES BOARD FOR COURTS OF LAW
2nd Respondent
Coram:
Dlamini J
Date of hearing: 18 October 2022 – Court 9B
Date of delivery of Judgment: 19 October 2022
This Judgment is deemed to have been delivered electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives via email and shall be uploaded onto the caselines system.
JUDGMENT
DLAMINI J
[1] This an application wherein the Applicant seeks a declaratory order that the restriction on Presiding Officers barring them from awarding costs orders in favor of successful self-representing litigants should be declared unconstitutional.
[2] The Applicant is Molefe Rufaro Dlodlo, an adult male with full legal capacity who describes himself as a self-representing litigant (SRL).
[3] The first Respondent is the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development of the Republic of South Africa (the Minister).
[4] The Second Respondent is the Rules Board for the Courts of Law of the Republic of South Africa (the Rules Board).
RES JUDICATA
[5] At the hearing of the application, the Respondent raised a point in limine of res judicata. The parties agreed that this point should be determined first as its finding will have the effect of disposing of the application.
[6] The Applicant brought a similar application seeking the same orders under case number 2018/16715 wherein the First Respondent was cited therein as Third Respondent. Having considered the application Matojane J said the following at [2] "At the time the Respondent brought the present application, there was a pending application in terms of rule 30 (2) of the Uniform Rules of Court by the applicants to set aside respondents' rule 16A notice that was the same as the one in the present application and between the same parties”
[7] Matojane J went on to say at [5] …. “the respondent had simply added the Chief Justice of South Africa, the judge president of the Johannesburg High Court, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and the director-general, Ministry of Justice and Constitutional development without complying with the rules on joinder of parties and seeking the requisite permission to institute action against the Judge President and the Chief Justice". The learned Judge went on and dismissed the application with a punitive cost order
[8] The Appellant avers that Matojane J's judgment was/is inconvertibly moot and of no consequence – hence it was not appealed against. The Applicant should have done exactly the opposite, he should have appealed this judgment instead he launches another impermissible application to this Court. Until appealed or reviewed and set aside Matojane J’s judgment stand.
[9] In my view, the first Respondent's point in limine of res judicata is upheld.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I make the following order
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The Applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application on the scale between attorney and own client.
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Date of hearing:
18 October 2022
Delivered:
19 October 2022
For the Applicant:
Mr. Molefe Dlodlo
Email:
molefedlodlo@gmail.com
For the Respondents:
Adv AM Adams
Email:
advadams@outlook.com