Nala Local Municipality v Thulo & another (Ruling on Costs) [2026] ZALCJHB 364

Seat of Court: Labour Court, Johannesburg

Date Delivered: 28 September 2026

Case No: 2026-193255

Name of Judge(s): Prinsloo J

Factual Summary:

In August 2026 the Labour Court set aside the enforcement and execution of an arbitration award of 5 December 2025 (FSD072502) against the Nala Local Municipality, the award having been satisfied, and made a provisional order that the municipality's costs be paid de bonis propriis by Mr Majoe's attorneys, Qhali Attorneys Inc, and his advocate, Mr Feni, jointly and severally. The execution had forced the municipality to launch an urgent application, which was opposed without regard to the Income Tax Act or the prospects of success, and the heads of argument had been criticised.

The legal representatives were given seven court days to show cause why the order should not be confirmed. They submitted that they were mere messengers for a client who had done his own research, that Mr Feni had relied on internet articles and the views of colleagues in advising that the compensation was not taxable, and that the heads of argument were drafted under time constraints.

Legal Questions Considered:

[11] ‘The Constitutional Court made it clear that an attorney (and an advocate for that matter) is an officer of the court and owes the court an appropriate level of professionalism and courtesy. Their role is certainly not reduced to that of a mere messenger or a receiver of instructions to represent a litigant who sought their services. Legal practitioners are officers of the Court, and their first duty lies with the Court.’

[12] ‘An attorney of record in litigation is no mere postbox or conduit for the receipt and dispatch of documents. He plays a pivotal role in the progress of litigation, the functioning of courts and the administration of justice. The attorney's function is to understand his client's problem and, even where he knows that counsel will be briefed, to go as far as he reasonably can in the time available not only to grasp the facts, but also to investigate the legal questions involved. It goes without saying that these duties cannot be fulfilled where the attorney has washed his hands of the matter and as in casu, adopts the attitude that he is only a messenger and if he did not take the instruction, someone else would have done so. An attorney owes duties not only to his client, but also to the court and, indeed, to his opponents and their clients.’

[15] ‘This is a case where the legal representatives ought to have advised Mr Majoe against execution, irrespective of what his own research might have revealed and what his instructions were. The legal representatives were not mere hirelings or mouthpieces of their client. They were required to exercise independent discretion in conducting the case, and they bear a heavy responsibility to focus not only on their client’s interests or instructions, but also on the efficient administration of justice and the greater and nobler duty to the Court.’

[19] ‘Lawyers involved in matters, especially where they are asked for an opinion, such as this case where Advocate Feni was approached to provide an opinion on the deductions prior to the issuing of a writ of execution, are expected to conduct legal research. Courts expect lawyers to bring a legally independent and questioning mind to bear on, especially, novel legal matters, and certainly not to merely repeat in parrot-fashion the unverified research from a surfing session on the internet.’

[20] ‘Legal research, as a minimum, involves a consideration of the primary sources of law. The important sources of primary law include case law, statutes, and regulations, including those issued by state departments or agencies.’

[21] ‘Advocate Feni did not mention any legislation or authority he considered in support of his arguments. Instead, he surfed the internet, relied on articles by unknown authors and asked around. On the strength of that, the process of execution, which ultimately resulted in an urgent application, was set in motion.’

[24] ‘The nature of urgent applications is urgency to draft papers and time constraints. If legal practitioners want to enter the arena of urgent litigation, they cannot expect anything else. However, considering the content of the heads of argument and the explanation tendered, I am not convinced that more time allowed would have produced better arguments. Advocate Feni, even before the writ of execution was issued, did not consider authorities or legislation, but relied on internet articles and others’ opinions. More time would not have changed this reality.’

[25] ‘The way in which the execution was persisted with and in which the opposing papers in this urgent application were drafted, is not merely an error of judgment. Mr Majoe’s legal representatives acted in a manner that constitutes a departure from their office by pursuing execution in circumstances where the arbitration award was satisfied and thereby causing the Applicant to approach this Court on an urgent basis. They persisted in seeking execution when they did not know the correct legal position and did not bother to make any effort to do proper, independent research on the topic.’

[26] ‘In my view the submissions filed are not mitigating. There is a legal basis to grant a cost order against the legal representatives and they should be ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs in the urgent application de bonis propriis. I am guided by the principles set out by the Courts in making such an order, mindful that it is awarded only in exceptional cases.’

[28] ‘Qhali Attorneys and Advocate Feni acted in a manner that did not constitute a bona fide mistake, an incorrect legal procedure or an error in judgment. On the contrary, they disregarded authorities and applied no thought to the legal position. The way they acted in pursuing execution and opposing the urgent application, was not merely misguided. It constituted a material departure from the responsibilities of their office, as fully alluded to supra.’

[30] ‘A cost order is a method of ensuring that decisions to litigate in this Court are taken with due consideration of the law and applicable authorities. This is stating the obvious. This is an exceptional case where the First Respondent’s representatives acted in a manner that justifies an order for costs de bonis propriis.’

Relief: The provisional order was confirmed. The municipality's costs of the urgent application are to be paid de bonis propriis, on the party and party scale, by Qhali Attorneys Inc and Advocate Feni, jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be absolved.

Judgment on SAFLII