A Pretoria law firm is seeking direct access to the Constitutional Court in a bid to overturn practice directives issued by the Gauteng High Court in January which restrict the number of cases a law firm can enrol per day.
A Pretoria News report notes Gert Nel Incorporated Attorneys, represented by attorney Gert Nel, said in an affidavit submitted to the Constitutional Court that the directives infringed on the right of litigants to access the court. The directives, issued by Judge President Dunstan Mlambo, pertain to both the Pretoria and Johannesburg divisions, notes the report. In terms of the directives, each law firm may only apply for a maximum of five matters per court roll a day. This is capped to a combined total of 20 matters per division a day. These restrictions do not include urgent applications. A limit of 40 warrants of execution and subpoenas, per firm, may be issued per day. Nel said limiting the number of trial date applications impeded access to justice for people seeking legal recourse. ‘If attorneys are restricted in the number of hearing date applications, it may result in delays for clients, prolonging the resolution of their legal matters,’ he said. Nel said he understood that the idea behind these directives was to ease the flow of the congested court rolls, but he said restricting hearing date applications would not address the root cause of inefficiency within the legal system.
It is well known that the Gauteng division is one of the busiest in the country, with a bursting court roll, especially with Road Accident Fund (RAF) matters, notes the Pretoria News. In his affidavit to the top court, Nel said: ‘The right of access to courts ensures litigants are not barred by procedural, legal or other obstacles from obtaining just and equitable relief from courts. The efficient management and administration of the court system is essential for efficiently delivering justice.’ he said. Nel commented that the RAF rarely settled matters directly, and legal practitioners representing road crash victims were wholly dependent on the allocation of trial dates to settle their clients’ matters. ‘As the practice directives stand, the RAF is being protected at the expense of all road crash victims, with limitations being imposed on the number of applications for court dates, leading to a huge bottleneck of unresolved matters,’ said Nel. He said as things stood, the rolls were so congested that the next available trial dates were only in November 2026. The law firm asserted that the latest of myriad directives represented an encroachment into the realm of legislative authority and constituted an overreach of judicial power.