Fly back into your post box: ego trip-accused judge lashes out at legal eagles

An attorney and an advocate in Mpumalanga have incurred the wrath of judge president Francis Legodi for saying in court papers that he had been on a “mere joyride and on an ego trip” when he ordered punitive costs after the attorney failed to appear in court.

Attorney Lufano Ramurumo said this in an application for leave to appeal judge Legodi’s ruling, which was argued on her behalf by an advocate identified as Mr Zwane.

In refusing to grant the application, the judge president noted a “slow erosion of established etiquettes”, the foremost of which was how to behave in court and treat the judge.

“It has now become fashionable for legal practitioners to take off their velvet gloves and unashamedly attack judicial officers or the judiciary as a whole when they are not happy with the judgments or when they are called to order by courts for their unprofessional conduct.

“There can be no speculation that when Mr Zwane settled the grounds of appeal and when Ms Ramurumo put her signature on the grounds of appeal, both knew that they were on a course to disparage, defame or otherwise to insult the presiding judge.

“They had plenty of time to reflect on the appropriateness of this. If they thought they [would] intimidate this court, they were clearly mistaken,” he said.

The initial matter before him was a Road Accident Fund (RAF) claim in which Ramuromo was representing the plaintiff as a “correspondent attorney”.

It has now become fashionable for legal practitioners to take off their velvet gloves and unashamedly attack judicial officers or the judiciary as a whole when they are not happy with judgments or when they are called to order by courts for their unprofessional conduct.

—  Mpumalanga judge president Frans Legodi

The matter was set down in January last year. 

When nobody appeared in court on behalf of the plaintiff that day, judge Legodi first asked why and then ordered Ramurumo to pay the wasted costs on a punitive scale.

In her grounds of appeal she said he had “grossly erred and misdirected himself”, the order was “absurd and irrational” because she was only appointed as a correspondent attorney and the instructing attorney had not given her instructions to brief counsel on that day.

Then, under the heading “Conclusion”, she said the judge was on a “mere joyride and on an ego-trip”, and sought an order that “he must personally pay the costs of this application and the costs of appeal”.

During argument in the application for leave to appeal, Zwane contended that Ramurumo was “just a post box” and had no instructions to brief counsel. 

But it was pointed out to him that this was not true and that a “specific instruction” had been given to her.

He then conceded that he had not read the court documents and that “I was not briefed, I was just told about the court order. I was not given the whole file.”

This, judge Legodi said, “leaves much to be desired”.

Questioned about the “conclusion”, Zwane said it was not “as per my advice”, but later became “evasive and incoherent” on the issue.

“It is this kind of conduct that brings the entire legal profession to shame and into disrepute. One expects that it is this kind of conduct that the professional body will stamp its foot on the ground to show that it is not a toothless body,” he said, ordering that their conduct be referred to the Legal Practice Council (LPC).

“A legal practitioner shall deal with judicial officers, court staff and other persons in court with civility and respect. This, both Mr Zwane and Ms Ramurumo intentionally left at their doorsteps. The LPC must consider where their conduct contravened any provisions of the code of conduct.”