MBABANE – Galp Eswatini (Pty) Ltd says there is a trend in the legal profession in Eswatini of legal practitioners demonstrating disrespect for courts and the Judiciary.
The Managing Director of Galp Eswatini, Bruno Marques, alleged that it had become commonplace for legal practitioners to use insulting, inappropriate and disparaging language towards judicial officers and sometimes even towards their fellow practitioners.
Marques was responding to an application in the Supreme Court, filed by Mangaliso Magagula of Magagula and Hlophe Attorneys, for an order reviewing and setting aside as irregular and unconstitutional the order of Judge Titus Mlangeni granted on March 31, 2025, that he be charged with contempt of court, because of grounds of appeal contained in a notice of appeal in respect of the judge’s decision to grant an ex parte hearing and orders on May 17, 2024.
Magagula also seeks an order setting aside the orders issued by Judge Mlangeni on March 31, 2025 to enrol the hearing of the contempt proceedings, where he was the complainant, witness, prosecutor and judge of a complaint brought by him and about him on the basis that such proceedings and orders are irregular, invalid and unconstitutional and are a violation of his right to a fair hearing in terms of Section 21 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Eswatini.
He further seeks to set aside the decision by Judge Mlangeni barring him from appearing in his court on the grounds that it is irregular, unconstitutional and ultra vires.
In the answering papers, Marques stated that Galp, as an entity, was not directly involved in the decision to prefer contempt of court charges against Magagula and the ensuing conviction. He said the answering affidavit, therefore, was filed on the premise that Galp is cited as a party in the proceedings and the contempt proceedings have their genesis in proceedings involving the company, as reflected in the citation.
Galp raised the issue of recent legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of Eswatini, specifically Case No: 35/2025 involving Magagula, Galp Eswatini, and Ncamase Investments (Pty) Ltd, which has cast a spotlight on the critical issue of lawyer conduct within the Eswatini legal profession. These proceedings, detailed in an answering affidavit by Marques, highlight a concerning trend of alleged disrespect for the courts and Judiciary.
One of the arguments against Magagula’s application is its alleged mootness.
The issues for determination in this matter have become moot and, therefore, not justiciable, as it no longer presents an existing or live controversy, considering the subsequent conviction and sentencing of the applicant.
Marques submitted that the court should dismiss the application because it is, in essence, required to provide an advisory opinion on the legal questions that are being raised. This, he argued, is fortified by the fact that in the judgment handed down on May 30, 2025, Judge Mlangeni allegedly addressed most of the issues raised by Magagula in the present matter.
“The matter has moved on since the institution of this application and that in the proper course, the application to invoke the court’s supervisory jurisdiction ought not to have been proceeded with,” said Marques.
He also argued that the contempt proceedings against Magagula have run their course. Magagula was convicted of contempt on May 30, 2025, sentenced and subsequently released from custody. He was released after he filed an application to declare his detention invalid.
Galp Eswatini is contending that the application for supervisory jurisdiction pertains to procedural orders issued prior to the conviction and sentencing, and, therefore, no longer presents an existing or live controversy.
Furthermore, it is argued that competent legal remedies were available to Magagula and were already invoked. Magagula notably filed an appeal under Supreme Court Number 42/2025 against the orders that are the subject of the application for supervisory jurisdiction.
The answering affidavit also addresses other issues raised by Magagula, including allegations of bias on the part of Judge Mlangeni and the latter being functus officio. Judge Mlangeni’s judgment on May 30, 2025, is cited as having already addressed most of the concerns.
Marques also submitted on the contention that Judge Mlangeni’s decision to bar Magagula from appearing in his court. He said while Magagula viewed this as irregular and unconstitutional, a court retains the discretion to bar a legal practitioner who conducts themselves in a manner considered ‘despicable or contemptuous’. This action, he alleged, is directly related to the practitioner’s previous contemptuous conduct.
He also refutes the assertion that Judge Mlangeni’s spouse was a member of EswatiniMed at the relevant time, resulting in a conflict of interest. He stated that the judge’s spouse ceased to be a member on January 31, 2024, and this information was reportedly known to EswatiniMed.
The managing director also raised concerns about the conduct of legal practitioners in the country.
“It notes a regrettable trend of lawyers demonstrating disrespect for courts and the Judiciary, manifesting in various forms, including the language used in affidavits and pleadings, and the launching of ‘prima facie spurious applications’ intended for ulterior objectives.
“I am advised that this has manifested itself in various forms, including the language employed in affidavits, pleadings and the launching of prima facie spurious applications that lack in both factual and legal foundation and are essentially intended to achieve ulterior objectives.
It has become commonplace for legal practitioners to use insulting, inappropriate and disparaging language towards judicial officers and sometimes even towards their fellow practitioners,” argued Marques.
The managing director also mentioned that the fundamental duties of a legal practitioner include: To the court, to the standards of the legal profession and to the public. He said lawyers are officers of the court and integral participants in the administration of justice. He stated that they have a duty to act with honesty, candour and to avoid engaging in conduct that constitutes an abuse of court process.
“There is a duty of care owed by a legal practitioner conducting litigation on behalf of a client to the court. It is generally accepted that a legal practitioner is not responsible for any wrongful act committed by him as an attorney, but there are exceptions premised on the nature of the infraction.
“The present matter is an example of a matter where, on a conspectus of the surrounding facts inclusive of affidavits filed in the multiple proceedings involving Galp Eswatini and Ncamase Investments, the legal practitioner breached his duty owed towards the court. For this reason, it is submitted that the applicant has not established the requisite jurisdictional facts required to move this court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction,” alleged Marques.
Galp Eswatini is represented by Robinson Bertram Attorneys in this matter, which is pending in court.
Leave a comment