present its evidence at trial, and also that the ITNJ
could not possibly decide in the Applicant’s favour
unless the Applicant manages to present convincing
evidence in support of its claims.
His Honour also asked about correspondence sent
from Brother Thomas on behalf of UZA to the
Tribunal the day before the directions hearing on
13 April. Brother Thomas explained that the correspondence in question was an application to the
Constitutional Court of South Africa, against the
Constitutional Court, the Republic of South Africa,
and the Judicial Service Commission in South Africa. This application was separate but related to the
matter currently on foot at the ITNJ. It was UZA’s
intention to see what happened with the Constitutional Court matter, and if it went satisfactorily
or not, the result may be used as evidence in the
ITNJ case. As such, Brother Thomas requested that
the ITNJ matter be stayed until the Constitutional
Court matter has reached some sort of conclusion. Brother Thomas, and UZA by extension, did
not want to jeopardise either action, to which His
Honour agreed.
The Applicant also confirmed that moving forward,
the Constitutional Court of South Africa was the
only appropriate Respondent. As such, the Republic
of South Africa has been removed as Respondent
and is no longer a party to the matter.
Upon the conclusion of the directions hearing,
orders were made regarding evidence, and it
was confirmed that a trial would be scheduled
no earlier than July 2016. This was to give UZA
sufficient time to deal with the separate Constitutional Court action, and to gather its evidence
and formulate its case.
[Download this summary]
[Download the transcript]
Julie-Anne Pho
ITNJ Court Officer
14 April 2016
F WATCH
F AUDIO-ONLY F
THE VIDEO F
UZA / ITNJ – THE THIRD DIRECTIONS HEARING