Rule 12, read with Rule 10 of the Uniform Rules of Court, allows a party with a direct and substantial interest in a dispute to apply to join the proceedings.
That is how the Phala Phala hearing took an unexpected turn on Wednesday when counsel representing the couch and the dollars rose to apply for their clients to be joined as parties.
“My Lords,” said counsel for the couch, “my client has remained silent for four years, not because it lacks evidence, but because nobody has had the courtesy to subpoena the furniture.”
Counsel for the dollars stood beside him. His clients, he said, supported the application but reserved their rights regarding ownership, nationality, quantity, purpose, and current whereabouts.
The application surprised the court, which had been considering whether the panel applied the correct test when finding Ramaphosa may have a case.
Counsel for the couch submitted that this was precisely the problem.
“Everyone is discussing what happened on, inside, and around my client,” he said. “Yet the couch, which was present throughout, has been treated as scenery.”
Unlike complainants, investigators, and commentators, the couch possessed direct evidence. It knew when the dollars arrived, where they stayed, who approached them, and whether their accommodation was concealed or merely unconventional.
The dollars claimed equally intimate knowledge. They knew where they came from, who counted them, who handled them, and why they had exchanged the formal banking system for upholstered lodging.
Counsel argued that no court could fairly determine whether sufficient evidence existed while excluding the evidence that had spent months sitting beneath everybody.
Ramaphosa’s counsel objected.
The application was premature. The court was not deciding what happened at Phala Phala but whether the report was lawful and impeachment could continue while Ramaphosa challenged it.
Counsel for the couch replied that his client was familiar with people sitting on issues.
The judges asked what legal interest a piece of furniture possessed.
Counsel said the couch had been named, blamed, searched, and associated with foreign currency. Once a place of rest, it was now internationally recognised as a private vault with cushions.
The couch therefore had a direct and substantial interest in any ruling that repeated allegations about its storage practices without hearing its version.
Counsel for the dollars presented a different argument. His clients were not merely evidence. They were the subject matter of the dispute.
“Remove the dollars,” he said, “and what remains of Phala Phala? A farm, a burglary, and an unusually famous sofa.”
The dollars objected to being discussed collectively. Their exact amount remained contested. Until each note was identified, counsel said, references to “the dollars” amounted to unlawful currency profiling.
The court asked whether the dollars were prepared to disclose their origin.
Counsel requested time to consult.
The couch shifted.
Its lawyer said his client had always understood that the money came from the sale of buffalo. It could not confirm seeing any buffalo inside the farmhouse, near the cushions, or participating in the transaction.
Counsel for the dollars objected. The couch was attempting to give evidence about events preceding their arrival.
“My learned friend cannot convert stuffing into expertise,” he said.
The court reminded both parties that it was dealing with a review, not conducting the impeachment inquiry.
Counsel for the couch said that strengthened its application. Ramaphosa argued the panel asked about a prima facie case instead of sufficient evidence. The couch had carried the evidence and could comment on its sufficiency.
“My client knows the difference between something placed lightly upon it and something of sufficient weight to leave an impression.”
Counsel for Ramaphosa said legal sufficiency could not be determined by upholstery.
“Yet it may be determined without hearing the principal witness?” counsel for the couch asked.
The dollars supported this submission. For hours, lawyers had debated whether the panel properly weighed the evidence. Nobody had asked whether the evidence consented to being weighed.
His clients objected strongly to further weighing until the court determined which exchange rate applied.
The argument then moved to bad faith. Ramaphosa’s team contended that the panel had failed to determine whether he acted willfully or in bad faith regarding each alleged violation.
Counsel for the dollars said his clients could assist. Money recognised bad faith. It encountered it regularly.
The couch distanced itself from that submission. It had provided temporary accommodation and refused to be drawn into the intentions of either its owner or occupants.
The judges asked what remedy the new applicants sought.
They wanted access to the papers, recognition of the couch as a witness rather than a storage allegation, and separate representation for dollars whose interests might conflict with the president, the alleged buyer, and each other.
Finally, both applicants sought an order preventing anyone from describing the matter as having been fully investigated until the only parties present during the central events had been heard.
Ramaphosa’s counsel warned that granting joinder would broaden the case beyond a review of the panel report.
Counsel for the couch disagreed.
The case had already broadened beyond recognition. It began with money hidden in furniture and had become a dispute over whether the wrong people asked the wrong question under the wrong rule before sending the right report to the wrong stage.
The couch and the dollars were merely trying to return it to the room where everything happened.
The court reserved judgment.
It considered whether furniture and currency possessed legal standing or merely impeccable comic timing.
The couch remained seated.
The dollars declined to confirm whether they were still in the building.
- Rule 12, read with Rule 10 of the Uniform Rules of Court, permits a party with a direct and substantial interest in a dispute to apply to join legal proceedings.
- Counsel for the couch and the dollars unexpectedly applied to join the Phala Phala hearing, claiming direct evidence and a central role in the case.
- The couch argued it had been present throughout and possessed direct knowledge about the arrival and concealment of the dollars.
- The dollars claimed to be the subject matter of the dispute, objecting to collective references and contesting details such as ownership and origin.
- The court reserved judgment on whether the couch and the dollars had legal standing to join the proceedings and on their requests for access and representation.
Rule 12, read with Rule 10 of the Uniform Rules of Court, allows a party with a direct and substantial interest in a dispute to apply to join the proceedings.
“My Lords,” said counsel for the couch, “my client has remained silent for four years, not because it lacks evidence, but because nobody has had the courtesy to subpoena the furniture.”
Counsel for the dollars stood beside him. His clients, he said, supported the application but reserved their rights regarding ownership, nationality, quantity, purpose, and current whereabouts.
Counsel for the couch submitted that this was precisely the problem.
“Everyone is discussing what happened on, inside, and around my client,” he said. “Yet the couch, which was present throughout, has been treated as scenery.”
Unlike complainants, investigators, and commentators, the couch possessed direct evidence. It knew when the dollars arrived, where they stayed, who approached them, and whether their accommodation was concealed or merely unconventional.
Counsel argued that no court could fairly determine whether sufficient evidence existed while excluding the evidence that had spent months sitting beneath everybody.
Ramaphosa’s counsel objected.
Counsel for the couch replied that his client was familiar with people sitting on issues.
Counsel said the couch had been named, blamed, searched, and associated with foreign currency. Once a place of rest, it was now internationally recognised as a private vault with cushions.
Counsel for the dollars presented a different argument. His clients were not merely evidence.
“Remove the dollars,” he said, “and what remains of Phala Phala? A farm, a burglary, and an unusually famous sofa.”
Counsel requested time to consult.
Its lawyer said his client had always understood that the money came from the sale of buffalo. It could not confirm seeing any buffalo inside the farmhouse, near the cushions, or participating in the transaction.
Counsel for the dollars objected.
“My learned friend cannot convert stuffing into expertise,” he said.
Counsel for the couch said that strengthened its application. Ramaphosa argued the panel asked about a prima facie case instead of sufficient evidence.
“My client knows the difference between something placed lightly upon it and something of sufficient weight to leave an impression.”
Counsel for Ramaphosa said legal sufficiency could not be determined by upholstery.
“Yet it may be determined without hearing the principal witness?” counsel for the couch asked.
His clients objected strongly to further weighing until the court determined which exchange rate applied.
Counsel for the dollars said his clients could assist. Money recognised bad faith. It encountered it regularly.
Finally, both applicants sought an order preventing anyone from describing the matter as having been fully investigated until the only parties present during the central events had been heard.
Ramaphosa’s counsel warned that granting joinder would broaden the case beyond a review of the panel report.
Counsel for the couch disagreed.
It considered whether furniture and currency possessed legal standing or merely impeccable comic timing.
