Letter from a Reader

Debtfree received this letter from one of our Attorney readers today:

The constitution of South Africa seems to mean NOTHING to some High Court Judges.

Today the Judge effectively denied a consumer her constitutional right to legal representation when her matter was called up today.

The Defendant who is under debt review by way of court order, and therefore does not have any residue of funds available, struggled to save for payment to Liddle and Associates to represent her on the first matter in which she was called before the court. ABSA Bank withdrew this case tendering the Defendants costs, but despite the attorneys for the Bank having received her attorney’s bill, the Bank still has not paid it.

This Defendant was sued for the second time by ABSA Bank on the same loan.  Liddle and Associates agreed to represent her once more and reduced their fees accordingly in order to honour the Defendant constitutional right of legal representation. The Defendant once more struggled to get this amount together for the second time.  The matter was set down on the court roll today and Defendants attorneys sent her to court to request a postponement to a date which would comply with their court diary, giving the Defendant a letter to hand up to Judge in which suitable dates were requested.

The Defendant was nervous and very anxious at the prospect of having to speak in court.  The matter was called and the Defendant was not given an adequate hearing.  The matter was then recalled so that the Defendant could be heard BUT the Judge refused again to give the Defendant an adequate hearing and even refused to accept the letter drafted by Defendants attorneys. The Defendant was stripped of her dignity and has lost all faith in the Court Justice system in the Western Cape. The matter was postponed to a date when the Defendants attorneys are again not available and the Judge directed the Defendant to find another attorney to appear.  This Defendant does not qualify for legal aid to assist her which requires that the joint income must be less than R6000.00 in order to qualify.  Having all the papers before her, the Judge should have considered that her postponement order effectively denied the Defendant her constitutional rights.

This Judge effectively rubber stamped the Banks conduct of outcosting Defendants so that access to justice in South Africa is denied.