A Johannesburg man embroiled in a civil dispute with Standard Bank has lodged a formal complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) against Joburg High Court Judge Brad Wanless, alleging several grievances regarding the conduct of his court proceedings, which he believes compromised the fairness of the trial.
Last week, Muzi Vilakati filed a complaint with the JSC. In it, he included an affidavit with six main reasons why he didn’t agree with Wanless’s decision during the leave-to-appeal proceedings on October 28 last year. During the proceedings, he challenged a prior judgement that had dismissed his initial action against the bank on the grounds of prescription.
Prescription issue addressed
The court, led by Wanless, ruled that the prescription issue had been adequately addressed. This was based on the pleadings and common cause facts, it said. And this meant that Vilakati’s disputed evidence, including alleged hearsay, was not relevant.
Wanless dismissed the appeal application. His dismissal was based on the principle that leave to appeal should only be granted when there’s a substantial likelihood of a different finding in a higher court. He noted that the prospects for success were not favourable enough to justify burdening the appellate courts further.
Before the JSC, Vilakati contended that the court attributed “false statements” to him that he never made. He referred to specific errors in some paragraphs of the judgement document. And he strongly denied making them.
Transcripts
The affidavit stated that these alleged falsehoods had no basis in the official records of the case. Vilakati backed his claims with transcripts from the leave to appeal hearing, which he procured from Gauteng Transcribers.
“There’s absolutely no record of the false statements,” he argues. He highlighted the essential disconnect between the documented proceedings and the judgement rendered by Wanless.
Vilakati represented himself in the leave to appeal application. He also expressed frustration over the limited time he was allotted to present his case.
Limited period
“Honourable Justice Wanless J. allowed strictly only 10 minutes,” Vilakati recalls. He noted how this limited period forced him to condense critical points. And he ultimately left out arguments he deemed crucial.
Vilakati contended that such a restriction is inconsistent with South African legal standards. These typically do not impose time limits on oral arguments, as long as they are supplementary to the heads of argument.
The affidavit underscored Vilakati’s belief that the court proceedings, as conducted by Wanless, “were not conducted in a fair and just manner”. This is a sentiment rooted in the South African Constitution’s provisions, which ensure lawful and procedurally fair administrative action. Vilakati references Section 33(1) and Section 34 of the Constitution, arguing that his rights to a fair hearing were compromised.
A particularly bold claim in Vilakati’s affidavit was the perceived dismissal by Wanless of arguments related to constitutional violations. The judge reportedly stopped Vilakati during the hearing when he discussed potential breaches of the South African Constitution.
Focus on constitution
“Oral argument regarding the violation of the Constitution was not relevant to the matter before the court,” Vilakati recalls the judge stating. A position that Vilakati strongly disputed. He stressed, “The Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic,” asserting that any conduct inconsistent with it is invalid. And he believed his trial lacked impartiality and thoroughness due to these perceived oversights and errors.
Further complicating matters were alleged omissions in the judgement. This was particularly Vilakati’s opening and closing statements. These statements, according to the affidavit, were integral to the case record. In his opening remarks, Vilakati had highlighted ongoing communication issues with both the clerks of Justice Wanless and Tabacks Attorneys. They represent Standard Bank. Despite repeated escalations to senior officials, including Judge President Dunstan Mlambo, he claims responses were only forthcoming after such interventions.
Bank’s failure to adequately address critical issues
Vilakati’s closing statement, also allegedly omitted from the report, focused on what he sees as Standard Bank’s failure to adequately address critical issues. These include the bank’s reliance on “verbal double hearsay testimony”. As well as the lack of testimony from key witnesses. This happened during a crucial arbitration at the CCMA back in January 2012.
“This non-compliance raises serious concerns about following court orders. It also undermines the principles of transparency and accountability in the legal process,” Vilakati said.
He was referring to Standard Bank’s continued refusal to provide a required statement of costs months after a High Court order.
The decision to dismiss the appeal application was bolstered by the principle that leave to appeal should only be granted when there’s a substantial likelihood of a different finding in a higher court. Judge Wanless noted that the prospects for success were not favourable enough to justify burdening the appellate courts further.
