Gerber v Uijs Sc (2980/10) [2010] ZAWCHC 64 (3 March 2010)

Gerber v Uijs Sc (2980/10) [2010] ZAWCHC 64 (3 March 2010)

The court found that the process for appointing an advocate in forma pauperis was properly followed. The attorney, Mr van Tonder, fulfilled his obligations under Uniform Rule of Court 40(1)(b) by investigating the merits and providing written reasons for his decision that the applicant had no prospects of success. The respondent, Adv Uijs SC, was not required to make any decision regarding the appointment of an advocate, nor was his secretary obliged to accept service or provide reasons. Since no decision was made by the respondent, no obligation to provide written reasons arose. The applicant's rights under section 33 of the Constitution were not infringed, as the relevant administrative...

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 64
Parties
Applicant: Mr Pierre Gerber; Respondent: Advocate Dirk Uijs SC
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 March 2010
Case Number
2980/10
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Relief Under Section 38 and 33 of the Constitution; Dismissal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Olivier
Legal Topics
Bill of Rights Limitation, Administrative Action, Written Reasons, In Forma Pauperis, Uniform Rules of Court
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Bill of Rights Limitation Administrative Action Written Reasons In Forma Pauperis Uniform Rules of Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Pierre Gerber

Applicant

Advocate Dirk Uijs SC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Relief Under Section 38 and 33 of the Constitution; Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was obliged to provide written reasons for refusing to appoint an advocate for the applicant in forma pauperis.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's rights to lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair administrative action under section 33 of the Constitution were infringed.
  3. 3 Whether any decision was made by the respondent triggering an obligation to provide reasons.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the process for appointing an advocate in forma pauperis was properly followed. The attorney, Mr van Tonder, fulfilled his obligations under Uniform Rule of Court 40(1)(b) by investigating the merits and providing written reasons for his decision that the applicant had no prospects of success. The respondent, Adv Uijs SC, was not required to make any decision regarding the appointment of an advocate, nor was his secretary obliged to accept service or provide reasons. Since no decision was made by the respondent, no obligation to provide written reasons arose. The applicant's rights under section 33 of the Constitution were not infringed, as the relevant administrative...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.