When legal strategy becomes liability: A wake-up call for labour lawyers

The Labour Court’s judgment in Choko-Choko v Tharisa Minerals is more than a dismissal of an urgent application; it is a sharp reminder of the professional responsibilities legal representatives owe to both their clients and the Court.

In this case, the applicant’s attorneys filed an urgent application to interdict a disciplinary hearing that had already taken place. The application was riddled with procedural flaws, lacked legal merit, and failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required for the Court to intervene in internal disciplinary processes.

The Court did not mince words. It issued a provisional cost order de bonis propriis against the applicant’s attorneys, citing their failure to comply with the Labour Court Rules, their disregard for established legal principles, and their role in burdening the Court with a meritless case.

Key lessons for legal practitioners

• Know the law, respect the forum: the Labour Court is not a venue for speculative or tactical litigation. Legal representatives must understand the Labour Courts’ jurisdiction and the limits of its powers under the Labour Relations Act.
• Regard for legal principles and precedent: attorneys must consider well-established legal principles and case law.
• Exceptional circumstances are not optional: applications to intervene in disciplinary hearings must be grounded in truly exceptional facts. The court will not entertain vague claims of unfairness or urgency without substance.
• Procedural compliance: pleadings must comply with the Labour Court Rules. The parties must be properly cited, and the founding affidavit must set out the necessary legal foundation.
• Professionalism is non-negotiable: attorneys are officers of the court. Filing defective papers, misrepresenting facts, or pursuing hopeless cases reflects a serious departure from professional standards.
• Clients deserve better: poor legal advice and ill-considered litigation strategies not only waste judicial resources, but they also prejudice clients who rely on their lawyers for sound guidance and effective representation.
• Costs can be personal: a cost order de bonis propriis is a public mark of the court’s displeasure. It signals that the conduct of the legal representatives was not just negligent but unacceptable.

Final thoughts

This judgment is a clear message to the legal profession: diligence, integrity, and respect for the law are not optional. The Labour Court is a specialised forum with limited resources and a vital role in resolving workplace disputes. Legal representatives must uphold their duty to the Court and their clients by ensuring that every application is properly grounded, procedurally sound, and legally justified.

The consequences of failing to do so are not just professional; they can be personal.

For advice or more information, please contact Riona Kalua, head of our Labour and Employment team.