Are you intending on taking someone to court? Have you been sued? Do you require some basic advice on litigation from an experienced advocate? If you answered yes once, this article is for you.

Picture outside the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town [caption id="attachment_8243" align="alignleft" width="412"]Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf outside the Western Cape High Court[/caption] We asked Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf to provide our readers with some simple and basic information on how to conduct themselves in court litigation. He holds a decade and a half of litigation experience. Who better to ask than him? Learn more about Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf by reading the article, ADVOCATE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf: I appeared in court countless amount of times for clients I represented. Furthermore, I drafted thousands of legal documents for them. This I did for litigants as they obviously do not have the necessary skills and experience to do it themselves. Often when a client meets with me, he or she will say this is the first time they have been introduced or embroiled in a legal matter. They are initially a bit anxious and do not know what to expect. Luckily for them, they are legally represented. Litigants are advised on what to expect as their case unfolds. They are informed of the processes that need to be followed and what they have to do in order to provide evidence to the court. As you would see later, this could either be in the form of an affidavit, or orally in Court. Notwithstanding the above, it is always useful to follow some basic guidelines when dealing with a court matter. This is what this article intends to demonstrate. It would be especially useful for someone who is representing themselves in court. In other words, acting in person. Although we advise you to make use of legal representation (advocate or attorney) when engaging in litigation, this article is for those who wish to handle their case on their own.

Who are the parties in a court case?

In civil legal matters, there are usually two opposite sides. Often there will be a Plaintiff and a Defendant. This is called action proceedings. In other cases, you will find an Applicant and a Respondent. This is called Application proceedings. The difference is explained next.

Action Proceedings: Commences with a Summons and Particulars of Claim

Western Cape High Court - Cape Town In action proceedings, there is a Plaintiff and a Defendant. Ultimately the parties will appear in Court to give evidence. In other words, they will step into the witness box and give evidence and answer questions about the specific case. The witness will be examined by his or her attorney or advocate. This is called examination in chief. Then he or she would be examined by the lawyer for the other side. This is called cross-examination. Then there is re-examination. The Plaintiff is the one who institutes the action or starts the case against the Defendant. And of course, the Defendant is the one who is taken to court by the Plaintiff.

Application Proceedings: Commences with a Notice of Motion and Founding Affidavit

In Application Proceedings, the parties to the dispute do not give evidence in the witness box. They provide their evidence in the form of a sworn statement or affidavit. It would start with a Notice of Motion. Basically, in the Notice of Motion, you will state exactly what you want from the court. The Applicant would then outline his or her case in the Founding Affidavit, and the Respondent would do so in his or her answering or opposing affidavit. The Applicant would then get a chance to reply to the opposing affidavit if he or she so wishes. The dispute is therefore resolved on affidavits. There is, therefore, no examination of witnesses. The Applicant is the one who starts the legal process and the Respondent is the other party. This article does not go into detail as to when Application proceedings or action proceedings are appropriate. However, if there is a serious dispute of fact at the outset, then action proceedings would be warranted. Now that we have identified who the parties are, let us provide you with some insight as to what the parties should observe when litigating.

Point 1: Do you have a case?

Whether or not you are instituting legal proceedings or defending it, it is always important to first determine whether or not you have a case. This might sound obvious, but many people litigate solely on emotion and not on fact. This point applies to whether you are instituting proceedings or whether you are defending it. If you are instituting proceedings and you do not have a case, you would not only be wasting your time and money, you would also have to pay the other side’s legal bill if so ordered. The same principle applies when opposing a case.

Point 2: Try to settle the court case early

Even if you have a strong case, it is always wise to attempt to settle it earlier than later. This is before an enormous amount of time and money is used. Many times, sitting face to face with the opposing party can resolve a dispute which could have cost the parties dearly. If sitting face to face is not possible, then try to send a written settlement proposal. This would give the other side something to work with. If they send a counter settlement proposal you are happy with, then take it and move on with your life.

Point 3: Obtain professional legal advice

This point could have been mentioned earlier, however, it applies to every step of the case. Although you are handling your own case, it is important that at each step of the way, you are legally informed. What better advantage will you have if you receive advice from someone who has years of legal experience in the field of law you are dealing with? As your case unfolds or evolves, having an experienced person advise you on your next move would be invaluable. This can save you a lot of time and money in the long run.

Point4: Stick to timelines and court rules

The court has rules and timelines. Therefore, know them and follow them pedantically. The last thing you want is for default judgment to be granted against you. Even worse, have your matter struck from the Court roll and pay the other party’s legal costs. The court rules are there for a reason. Other than timelines, ensure that your court file is in order, indexed and paginated and presentable for the court. This applies to both action and application proceedings.

Point 5: Simplify your case

The adjudicator of your matter is a judge. Although he or she is very learned and wise, he or she does not know the ins and out of your business or issue. It is therefore important that you follow basic principles of simplicity and logic when presenting a case. This could either be when drafting your particulars of claim, or your Notice of Motion. When presenting your case in action proceedings, ask a simple and concise question which would help the court to follow where you are going to. Ask one question at a time. Often lawyers ask two or three questions in a single “question”. For example, the lawyer would ask a witness, “what time did you meet the defendant, and what colour was his jacket and did he sound angry?”. We are certain that you found the above article useful and interesting. Please consider sharing it on the share buttons below. They include Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Gmail and more. Someone may find it useful as well. Should you require business advice or services, feel free to click on these links: Business SA | Private Legal | Envirolaws      
Posted on by Telelaw

Are you intending on taking someone to court? Have you been sued? Do you require some basic advice on litigation from an experienced advocate? If you answered yes once, this article is for you.

Picture outside the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town

Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf
Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf outside the Western Cape High Court

We asked Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf to provide our readers with some simple and basic information on how to conduct themselves in court litigation. He holds a decade and a half of litigation experience. Who better to ask than him? Learn more about Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf by reading the article, ADVOCATE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA.

Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf:

I appeared in court countless amount of times for clients I represented. Furthermore, I drafted thousands of legal documents for them. This I did for litigants as they obviously do not have the necessary skills and experience to do it themselves. Often when a client meets with me, he or she will say this is the first time they have been introduced or embroiled in a legal matter. They are initially a bit anxious and do not know what to expect. Luckily for them, they are legally represented.

Litigants are advised on what to expect as their case unfolds. They are informed of the processes that need to be followed and what they have to do in order to provide evidence to the court. As you would see later, this could either be in the form of an affidavit, or orally in Court.

Notwithstanding the above, it is always useful to follow some basic guidelines when dealing with a court matter. This is what this article intends to demonstrate. It would be especially useful for someone who is representing themselves in court. In other words, acting in person. Although we advise you to make use of legal representation (advocate or attorney) when engaging in litigation, this article is for those who wish to handle their case on their own.

Who are the parties in a court case?

In civil legal matters, there are usually two opposite sides. Often there will be a Plaintiff and a Defendant. This is called action proceedings. In other cases, you will find an Applicant and a Respondent. This is called Application proceedings. The difference is explained next.

Action Proceedings: Commences with a Summons and Particulars of Claim

Western Cape High Court - Cape Town

In action proceedings, there is a Plaintiff and a Defendant. Ultimately the parties will appear in Court to give evidence. In other words, they will step into the witness box and give evidence and answer questions about the specific case. The witness will be examined by his or her attorney or advocate. This is called examination in chief.

Then he or she would be examined by the lawyer for the other side. This is called cross-examination. Then there is re-examination. The Plaintiff is the one who institutes the action or starts the case against the Defendant. And of course, the Defendant is the one who is taken to court by the Plaintiff.

Application Proceedings: Commences with a Notice of Motion and Founding Affidavit

In Application Proceedings, the parties to the dispute do not give evidence in the witness box. They provide their evidence in the form of a sworn statement or affidavit. It would start with a Notice of Motion. Basically, in the Notice of Motion, you will state exactly what you want from the court. The Applicant would then outline his or her case in the Founding Affidavit, and the Respondent would do so in his or her answering or opposing affidavit. The Applicant would then get a chance to reply to the opposing affidavit if he or she so wishes.

The dispute is therefore resolved on affidavits. There is, therefore, no examination of witnesses. The Applicant is the one who starts the legal process and the Respondent is the other party.

This article does not go into detail as to when Application proceedings or action proceedings are appropriate. However, if there is a serious dispute of fact at the outset, then action proceedings would be warranted. Now that we have identified who the parties are, let us provide you with some insight as to what the parties should observe when litigating.

Point 1: Do you have a case?

Whether or not you are instituting legal proceedings or defending it, it is always important to first determine whether or not you have a case. This might sound obvious, but many people litigate solely on emotion and not on fact. This point applies to whether you are instituting proceedings or whether you are defending it.

If you are instituting proceedings and you do not have a case, you would not only be wasting your time and money, you would also have to pay the other side’s legal bill if so ordered. The same principle applies when opposing a case.

Point 2: Try to settle the court case early

Even if you have a strong case, it is always wise to attempt to settle it earlier than later. This is before an enormous amount of time and money is used. Many times, sitting face to face with the opposing party can resolve a dispute which could have cost the parties dearly. If sitting face to face is not possible, then try to send a written settlement proposal. This would give the other side something to work with. If they send a counter settlement proposal you are happy with, then take it and move on with your life.

Point 3: Obtain professional legal advice

This point could have been mentioned earlier, however, it applies to every step of the case. Although you are handling your own case, it is important that at each step of the way, you are legally informed. What better advantage will you have if you receive advice from someone who has years of legal experience in the field of law you are dealing with? As your case unfolds or evolves, having an experienced person advise you on your next move would be invaluable. This can save you a lot of time and money in the long run.

Point4: Stick to timelines and court rules

The court has rules and timelines. Therefore, know them and follow them pedantically. The last thing you want is for default judgment to be granted against you. Even worse, have your matter struck from the Court roll and pay the other party’s legal costs. The court rules are there for a reason. Other than timelines, ensure that your court file is in order, indexed and paginated and presentable for the court. This applies to both action and application proceedings.

Point 5: Simplify your case

The adjudicator of your matter is a judge. Although he or she is very learned and wise, he or she does not know the ins and out of your business or issue. It is therefore important that you follow basic principles of simplicity and logic when presenting a case. This could either be when drafting your particulars of claim, or your Notice of Motion. When presenting your case in action proceedings, ask a simple and concise question which would help the court to follow where you are going to. Ask one question at a time. Often lawyers ask two or three questions in a single “question”. For example, the lawyer would ask a witness, “what time did you meet the defendant, and what colour was his jacket and did he sound angry?”.

We are certain that you found the above article useful and interesting. Please consider sharing it on the share buttons below. They include Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Gmail and more. Someone may find it useful as well.

Should you require business advice or services, feel free to click on these links:

Business SA | Private Legal | Envirolaws

 

 

 

Related Post

Is it possible for an unmarried father to obtain full custody of a 10-year-old child and not the mother? – A simplified family lawyer’s perspective.

By Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf There is a common misconception that if a child was born out of wedlock; only the mother can be the primary caregiver of the child concerned. This may however generally be the case. However, it is presumed by some that if a mother cared for the child since his or her birth, the father would not be able to be the child’s primary caregiver. In other words, the child would always live with the mother, and never with the father. We do not blame our clients for thinking so. That is the stereotype. As the world changes, so does the law.

The popular scenario regarding single parenting?

We are often approached by fathers who have a child that was born out of wedlock. He and the mother most probably lived together when the child was born. But things did not work out between them. The mother moved out and lived with her parents or on her own. The father would then regularly have contact with the child. The type of contact would be decided by the mother. Now the question is, even if the child is 10 years old; is it possible for the child to be cared for by the father and live with him primarily? The answer to that is yes. This is so, as the law looks at what is best for the child concerned.

Best interests of the child principles when it comes to children

Both the South African Constitution and the Children’s Act, says that the child’s best interests are given priority. In other words, a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in matters relating to him or her. Therefore, for one to assume at the outset, that only mothers are the best primary caregivers, is not only incorrect but potentially dangerous when dealing in children’s matters. The law expects us to look at all factors, not only who historically looked after the child, but also, the possibility of whether the father can better care for the child. Moreover, as the child’s best interests are of paramount importance, deciding as to whether or not to move a child from the primary care of a mother to that of the father should not be done lightly. Therefore, even if the father, 10 years later, can on the face of it care better for the child than the mother, this should not be the deciding factor. One would also need to look at the emotional and psychological impact it would have on the child as well.

What would be an ideal situation where moving the child from the mother to the father would be warranted?

In our view, material comforts are not reason enough to move a child from the primary care of a mother to that of a father. If the father is a wealthy person, and the mother not, he can be ordered to pay more child support towards the minor child’s expenses. However, if the child is of a certain age, and he needs to have certain living conditions, and the father has it, then that would be a possible factor in granting the father primary care. For example, if the child is a gifted swimmer, and 17 years old, and in matric, and needs to train consistently, then it makes sense that the father’s living amenities may be an important factor to justify the movement of the child.

Obvious reasons to have the child primarily cared for by the father or another party

Then there is the obvious reason to move the child from the primary care of the mother to that of the father or another person. This would be because the mother is totally incapable of caring for the minor child. She may have developed a mental illness, be admitted to a drug rehabilitation facility, or neglects the child whilst in her care. In such a case, one would look at the father. If he too has issues, then the child would need to be placed in alternative care. For example, foster care, or with another relative.

Is it possible for an unmarried father to obtain full custody of a 10-year-old child?

From the above, it is clear that it is possible for an unmarried father to obtain full custody of a 10-year-old child. It all depends on the facts of the matter. Whilst mothers may be best to care for the child in his or her early age of development, once should not lose sight of the fact that the father could care better for the child. If he cannot, then the child should remain in the primary care of the mother. We are certain that you found the above article useful and interesting. Please consider sharing it on the share buttons below. They include Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Gmail and more. Someone may find it useful as well. Should you require business advice or services, feel free to click on these links: Business SA | Private Legal | Envirolaws  
Posted on by Telelaw

Do you require a video legal advice consultation?

Click here and schedule one today!