Africa-Press – Eswatini. Supreme Court THE marathon case involving Big Tree Filling Station and Galp Eswatini was put on ice after a complaint was raised to the effect that none of the judges forming the panel was fit to adjudicate.
The complaint was raised in a courtroom drama that was punctuated by flared tempers yesterday morning.
This relates to the review of a Supreme Court decision, which turned down an earlier order in favour of Big Tree filling station, which compelled Galp Eswatini to continue availing fuel supplies to the Matsapha based garage, pending finalisation of their dispute.
The matter was yesterday postponed indefinitely by a Supreme Court bench comprising five judges, in a decision that arose after lawyers representing directors of the filling station registered reservations about the composition of the bench. Subsequently, Supreme Court Judge Phesheya Dlamini, who was sitting in the five-member panel, ruled that the matter would be adjourned in order to allow the court to decide whether hearing will continue with the current composition of the bench or others would have to be appointed to adjudicate.
In order to address the issue, the court asked all the parties to provide written reasons, arguing why the panel cannot sit, or if it was appropriate for them to adjudicate in the matter.
“The bench was prepared to hear this matter but now we are unable to proceed and the matter is postponed sine dine. We were told that none of us is competent to sit, so we are unable to sit until we cross that bridge,” explained the judge.
This marks the latest twist in the long running drama, which has seen the business dispute between the local filling station and the multi-national corporation running a fuel supply franchise failing to come to an end in the local courts.
Immediately after the judges had settled, the directors of the filling station exchanged glances before one of them moved forward to inform their legal team about their grievance. Soon thereafter, Lawyer Mangaliso Magagula rose to raise the complaint.
He told the court that his clients were unhappy about the composition of the bench and requested to see the bench members in their chambers in order to be able to elaborate more on the grievance.
Objection However, there was an objection from the legal representative for Galp Eswatini, who argued that the applicants ought to have raised their complaint on the previous day in order for it to be sustained. But this argument was rejected by Big Tree lawyers, who questioned the rationale against it, saying on the previous day they had not even the slightest inkling about which judges were to form the bench. It was then that the bench allowed the request by the Big Tree lawyers to approach them in their chambers.
Comprising the five member bench was Justices Phesheya Dlamini, Mbutfo Mamba (acting), Majahenkhaba Dlamini, Andreas Lukhele (acting) and Sabelo Masuku (acting). Apparently, Mamba and Dlamini had previously dealt with the same matter, but in its early stages, while Masuku is currently sitting with a complaint lodged by the businessmen against the Chief Justice Bheki Maphalala involving the same court case. It was learnt that after the lawyers representing the filling station directors had made their presentations in chambers, the targeted judges refused to recuse themselves.
The fact that the bid for recusal had failed prompted the bench to ask the filling station lawyers to make out a case in order for the court to grant the relief sought. In other words, the applicants were called upon to move a formal plea for the removal of the judges in question from the bench.
Big Tree lawyers are expected to launch the formal application on or before February 25, 2022, while the respondents were advised to file their answering affidavits on March 11, 2022.
Replies to the answering affidavits would be expected on March 18.
Then after all the required documents have been received by the court, the full bench is expected to adjudicate on the issue raised in the special plea by Big Tree directors.
The review case itself would have to wait for the determination of the recusal application.
For More News And Analysis About Eswatini Follow Africa-Press
