UZA DIRECTIONS HEARING 2
Unified Common Law
Grand Jury of
Southern Africa
Julie-Anne Pho
ITNJ Court Officer
At 8AM (GMT+2) on Wednesday 16 December 2015,
default judgments where a party does not appear, in
the ITNJ held a second directions hearing for the matter
this instance, Chief Justice Walsh of Brannagh used the
of Unified Common Law Grand Jury of Southern Africa
directions hearing as an opportunity to clarify further
(‘UZA’) v Republic of South Africa, and Constitutional
issues with UZA. After all, a trial in this matter has not
Court of South Africa. Like the first directions hearing,
yet happened (nor has it been scheduled) and as such,
this hearing was conducted virtually, and Chief Justice
the Respondents still have opportunities to bring their
of the ITNJ, Sir John Walsh of Brannagh, presided over
individual cases forward.
the matter from his Chambers in Melbourne, Australia.
Similarly, UZA was represented at the hearing by its
On behalf of UZA, Brother Thomas clarified, per previ-
Administrator, Brother Thomas, and Counsel, Miss T,
ous orders made at the 1 December directions hearing,
who both attended the hearing from Cape Town, South
the UZA’s claim in the matter. At the hearing on 16
Africa.
December, Chief Justice Walsh of Brannagh discussed
points for UZA to consider, such as whether it wanted to
The main purpose of this directions hearing was to
give documentary evidence or viva voce evidence (wit-
allow the Respondents an opportunity to defend the
nesses giving oral evidence) at trial. An order was made
action and present their respective cases. Unfortunately,
that before the listed date for trial, UZA must confirm
and despite numerous attempts by both UZA and the
how it is seeking to support its claims at trial, and to no-
ITNJ to advise the Respondents to attend the hearing,
tify the Respondents and the ITNJ in this regard. Broth-
there were no appearances from either the Republic
er Thomas advised that UZA had a number of parties in
of South Africa or the Constitutional Court of South
mind that could be called as witnesses at trial.
Africa. Although a party’s failure to attend a hearing
is in no way advisable, particularly because it is not in
Brother Thomas and Miss T were both satisfied that
the interests of justice or fairness, it does not necessarily
all outstanding queries and issues had been cleared up
preclude a matter from proceeding. Although like other
at the directions hearing. Consequently, it was unani-
courts and tribunals, the ITNJ has discretion to make
mously believed that the matter was ready to proceed to
TheSovereignVoice.Org