Many taxpayers, exasperated by the legal antics of former president Jacob Zuma, wonder why he hasn’t been declared a vexatious litigant. His unbridled Stalingrad approach to litigation would seem to make him an ideal candidate, along with several other high-profile figures currently gobbling up tax resources with delaying, inevitably hopeless, court action.
But Zuma has a lot to learn about persistent, fruitless legal action from another maestro, the comparatively unknown David Chauke.
Not only has former police officer Chauke been declared a vexatious litigant more than once — for the second time last week — but he’s also been found in contempt of court because he has continued to litigate in a matter, despite a judge having barred him from doing so.
The most recent decision came in response to an application by the minister of police. In 2009, Chauke launched action against the ministers of police and justice & constitutional development, with a claim that set the tone for what was to follow: he wanted a cool R6bn in damages after his successful appeal against a 2007 conviction and sentence for corruption, among other things.
Chauke has been in and out of court with claims against an increasing number of officials, for amounts that would fund a rocket launch to Mars
Ballooning to R300bn
Since the launch of that claim, Chauke has been in and out of court with claims against an increasing number of officials, for amounts that would fund a rocket launch to Mars.
When a court rejects his claim, as they all do, Chauke broadens his range with appeals in which he joins extra respondents, usually judges and sometimes even the country’s president.
That 2009 damages application, dismissed in its entirety by high court judge Leonie Windell, should have been put to bed when — after a brief detour past the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), which refused to hear the appeal — the Constitutional Court refused him leave to appeal in 2014. But even the apex court’s rejection didn’t dampen his litigious enthusiasm.
In 2018 he was back in court in Joburg, raising essentially the same matters already comprehensively dealt with and rejected in his failed earlier litigation. Except, this time he included the minister of police as a respondent — along with 15 others from virtually every government department. He also upped his claim: that initial R6bn now became R300bn.
High court judge Brian Mashile dismissed his application, as the earlier matter had already been resolved by Windell. A second application to have the Windell decision rescinded on the basis that it was “granted in error and induced by fraud”, was also dismissed, with costs, by Mashile, who added that Chauke couldn’t approach the court again on the same claim until he had paid those costs.
But he was soon back at the Constitutional Court, where he was refused direct access to challenge Mashile’s decisions. Rejected there, he tried the SCA with not the slightest hope of success, producing an even further inflated claim and an equally expanded list of respondents.
There’s something pathetic and distressingly unbalanced about a person who persists in the face of such clear indications that he has no case — even increasing his claims so spectacularly that one now stands at more than R28-trillion. But it’s a serious problem: the courts and the many respondents, including judges, cabinet ministers and state institutions, have had to waste valuable resources in dealing with Chauke’s conduct, not to mention the “abusive and defamatory grounds” on which the cases are based.
In a separate earlier application, Chauke was declared a vexatious litigant against the Reserve Bank but, ignoring the order, he approached the Constitutional Court to set it aside. In the wake of that effort, he’s also been declared in contempt of court for attempting to continue his litigation, with a prison sentence looming if he targets the Bank again.
Last week, acting judge Peter van Niekerk agreed that Chauke should be barred from continuing his legal action against the minister of police. But will this have any effect? Or is imprisonment for contempt the only option to stop him?
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.