David Chauke — a man who has a history of suing government departments, such as the police and the South African Reserve Bank (Sarb), with huge claims — has been declared a “vexatious litigant” by the Pretoria high court.
Police minister Bheki Cele sought a notice of motion against Chauke, who had lodged a damages claim for R6bn after he succeeded in an appeal against a corruption conviction.
This latest case comes in the wake of a “lengthy and destructive history” between Chauke and several other respondents in a plethora of applications he brought in matters where he represented himself.
In a previous case brought by Chauke against the SARB, it was argued Chauke's multiple actions and applications were misguided and expensive and a waste of taxpayers’ money.
And because he was unrepresented and “not of financial means”, his targets could not recover costs awarded. Chauke's conduct was also described as “offensive, defamatory, vexatious and frivolous”.
Previous cases include claims for R9.57bn from the minister of police, R6.5-trillion from the government and €80m (R1.60bn) from the Netherlands.
Chauke also applied to the court to have the CEO of Emirates Airlines referred to the International Criminal Court after Chauke was allegedly humiliated for not being permitted to board a flight. He lodged a prayer for relief in the UN General Assembly for matters already dismissed in the Constitutional Court, with special damages of R6.50-quadrillion, a restitution claim for R28-trillion against the minister of police and R6bn for alleged “criminal defamation”.
The minister asked that Chauke be barred from instituting legal proceedings or further action against the ministry or representatives — either in their personal or professional capacities — in cases he has before court or any other disputes emanating from them.
Cele also asked the court to order Chauke to obtain written leave from the relevant court before instituting or proceeding with legal action. The minister asked the deputy judge president “or person in charge in the inferior court” be notified in writing that Chauke is declared a vexatious litigant and therefore restrained from instituting legal proceedings against the police.
The court found Chauke’s history of legal action against the police began in 2009 when he instituted a claim against the ministers of police and justice for “damages in the exorbitant amount of R6bn after a successful appeal against a conviction and sentence of, among other things, corruption, of which the respondent was found guilty in 2007”.
That case stalled in 2011 when the presiding judge directed Chauke to obtain assistance from a law clinic. However, before this happened, Chauke issued another summons against the minister of justice on the same case in a matter that was eventually dismissed in 2014.
Chauke appealed and the appeal was dismissed, prompting him to take the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) where it was again dismissed and he was ordered to pay the costs.
Chauke took the matter to the Constitutional Court and this time joined the SCA president as a respondent.
Four years later, Chauke launched a motion proceedings in the Johannesburg high court based on the same cause of action. This time he cited the police minister and “15 other respondents, including virtually every government department, and escalated the claim from R6bn to R300bn”.
The case was dismissed as having been finalised in 2014, prompting Chauke to apply for that judgment to be rescinded on the basis that it was granted in error and induced by fraud. The application was dismissed and Chauke was barred from approaching the court again on the same claim before paying all the costs orders against him.
Undeterred, Chauke approached the ConCourt for that decision to be reviewed and set aside and applied for his matter to be stayed on the court roll.
In this application for direct access to the ConCourt, Chauke joined the chair of Capitec Bank, the finance minister, governor of the Sarb, the National Credit Regulator and the banking services ombudsman as additional respondents and included an additional claim for $8bn (R148.90bn) for a so-called “research fund”.
The application was dismissed by the SCA and Chauke applied to the ConCourt to appeal the SCA order.
After being dismissed four times by the SCA and three times by the ConCourt, Chauke started a new application, naming 33 parties as respondents and claiming more than R9bn for loss of an industrial and home theatre system allegedly removed by the police from his house in 2007 and R6.5-trillion for an alleged unlawful arrest in 2007. That case suffered the same fate as the previous actions, again failing in the SCA and ConCourt.
“It must be remarked that the history as set out is but a condensed account of the plethora of litigation instituted by the respondent and does not include the history of procedures initiated in various other quasi-judicial forums or all interlocutory procedures employed since 2009,” the court heard.
It was argued that Chauke’s claims were “so exorbitantly quantified” that they should be regarded as irrational and malicious, they consistently lacked formulation in terms of court rules, that entities with no interest in the matter were joined as entities and judges who made unfavourable findings against Chauke were joined in subsequent proceedings. It was noted that not once had any judge found merit in any of Chauke’s legal proceedings.
The court noted Chauke had bombarded the police with emails that needed to be attended to by personnel and before the start of this latest matter, he had emailed the minister of police by way of the high court registrar, including “inter alia the NASA Mars mission, various judges of this division (both Johannesburg and Gauteng), the registrar of the deputy judge president of this division, and Bill Gates” as co-recipients.
“The history of [Chauke’s] institution of various actions and applications, primarily against the [police minister], is in my view the proverbial textbook example of vexatious proceedings and without doubt display a pattern of persistent litigation without reasonable grounds,” the court said in finding Chauke was unlikely to “desist in his irrational institution of proceedings” unless prevented from doing so.
It was also noted that Chauke had been declared a vexatious litigant against the Reserve Bank in January this year and had already applied to the ConCourt for the matter to be reviewed.
Should he wish to litigate, he will have to obtain written leave from the court and inform the court he has been declared a vexatious litigant and is “restrained from institution of certain legal proceedings” against the police.
And should Chauke ever be granted leave to institute or proceed with action, he be required to provide security for legal costs for the respondents. Chauke was also ordered to pay the costs of the action won by the police.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.