Pipla Challenges Gauteng High Court's Mandatory Mediation Directive
Stories are grouped across languages, rewritten into a fixed editorial format, and linked to original sources. How we report.
TL;DR
- Pipla has brought an application challenging the Gauteng High Court's mandatory mediation directive.
- The directive makes mediation compulsory before certain civil trials.
- Pipla argues the directive is unconstitutional and unworkable.
- Judgment in the case is reserved.
Overview
The Personal Injury Plaintiff Lawyers Association (Pipla) has requested the Gauteng High Court to invalidate a directive issued by former Judge President Dunstan Mlambo requiring mandatory mediation in all civil cases before trial. Pipla claims the directive is outside the Judge President's powers and infringes on litigants' rights. Judgment on Pipla's application is pending.
What Happened
In April 2023, then Judge President Dunstan Mlambo issued a directive mandating mediation in all civil cases within the Gauteng Division before cases proceed to trial.
Pipla filed an application with the Gauteng High Court to declare the directive and its associated protocol constitutionally invalid. Pipla argues that the directive is unworkable, infringes on the right to access courts, and does not ensure equal benefit before the law.
Since the directive, there have been thousands of cases where parties were compelled to consider mediation before pursuing litigation. For cases involving the Road Accident Fund (RAF), defendants agreed to contribute up to R15,000 to mediation costs.
The RAF responded that the Judge President had the authority to issue the directive and defended compulsory mediation as a legitimate and beneficial process to reduce litigation. The RAF described mediation as a means to promote settlements and reduce legal costs.
Counsel for the Justice Minister and Judge Mlambo objected to Mlambo's citation as a respondent, citing procedural requirements.
Context
The directive making mediation compulsory in civil matters was introduced amid growing backlogs in Gauteng courts. According to Pipla, the intention was to ease judicial caseloads, but they argue it restricts litigants' rights.
Mandatory mediation as a procedural requirement in litigation has been controversial in several jurisdictions, with courts and stakeholders divided over its effectiveness and constitutionality.
Why It Matters
- The outcome of this challenge may influence whether mandatory mediation can be imposed as a precondition for civil trials in Gauteng and potentially other South African jurisdictions.
- A key issue in the case is the balance between judicial efficiency and access to the courts.