- The Labour Court removed a reinstatement application from the roll after an attorney took the original court file out of the court building without the registrar’s written authorisation.
- Acting Judge PN Kroon warned that unauthorised removal of court records “has the potential to undermine the integrity of the judicial process” and “may constitute an offence.”
- The attorney has been ordered to file a sworn explanation within 21 days explaining why a de bonis propriis costs order should not be granted against him personally.
The unauthorised removal of an original court file from the court building has placed an attorney at risk of a personal costs order, following a stern rebuke from the Labour Court in Gqeberha.
The matter was brought by Vusumzi Kate, who sought the reinstatement of a review application against the Department of Correctional Services. The Government Pensions and Social Security Bargaining Council was cited as the second respondent, with John Mashika and Pumeza Ndabambi as the third and fourth respondents, respectively.
In the ruling, Acting Judge PN Kroon made it clear that court records are not working documents to be handled casually. They are state property and central to the functioning of the justice system.
What happened
The matter before the court was a reinstatement application brought by Kate against the Department of Correctional Services and others. When the case was called on 19 February 2026, the judge discovered that the court file was "in an untidy and disorganised state," with loose documents and no proper indexing or pagination despite earlier directions.
Although the court initially considered not entertaining the matter, it granted the applicant’s legal representative an indulgence. The hearing was adjourned to the following day on the condition that the file be placed in proper order. Instead of restoring confidence, what followed escalated the situation.
The applicant’s legal representative left the court building with the entire original file, including the brown cover, without the registrar’s permission or knowledge. Court staff discovered the file was missing only when it was needed to prepare an order.
The governing rule is explicit. As quoted in the judgment: “The registrar must keep the court’s records and must not allow them to leave the court building without the registrar’s prior written authorisation.”
Judge Kroon emphasised that this provision exists for a fundamental reason. “The rule is self-evidently there for a reason. A court file contains the original pleadings and belongs to the state. Its unauthorised removal has the potential to undermine the integrity of the judicial process,” said the judge.
The judge added that removing a file does more than inconvenience staff: “If the file is removed from the building, it denies the court staff access to their own records. Furthermore, the registrar has no record of when the file left and when it was due to return.”
‘One should be careful not to trivialise’
In one of the most striking passages of the judgment, Judge Kroon warned against minimising the seriousness of the conduct: “One should be careful not to trivialise an incident like this. Strictly speaking, the unauthorised use or borrowing of the property of another (in this case, the state) may constitute an offence.”
The file was eventually returned later that afternoon, but it remained improperly organised. Loose documents persisted, and the indexing was still defective.
The court recorded that the conduct “resulted in a level of concern and distress amongst the Court staff” and that it hampered the registrar’s office in performing its duties.
When called upon to explain himself the following day, the attorney acknowledged that he knew he was not allowed to remove the file without authorisation. He admitted that his conduct was wrong and apologised, explaining that he had become "confused" and "carried away" when the State Attorney offered assistance with photocopying.
Accountability and personal costs
The judgment places the incident within the broader principle that an applicant, as dominus litis, bears the duty to ensure that the court file is properly prepared. Procedural non-compliance that causes delay may justify a costs order.
Judge Kroon referred to authority from the Labour Appeal Court of South Africa confirming that procedural missteps which prejudice the opposing party may appropriately be penalised through costs.
The court expressly recognised that there is “scope for the court to find that the applicant’s legal representatives should be liable for the costs” and that the failure to manage the file properly, compounded by the unauthorised removal, was serious.
However, in the interests of fairness, the judge afforded the attorney a further opportunity to explain himself. He has been given 21 calendar days to provide "a full explanation on oath for his conduct" and to make submissions as to why a de bonis propriis costs order should not be granted against him personally.
In the meantime, the reinstatement application has been removed from the roll and may not be re-enrolled until the file is brought into proper order to the satisfaction of the registrar.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
