Judge slams law firm for misleading court with 'cut-and-paste' applications targeting refugees

A law firm and an advocate have been ordered to personally cover the costs for six "cut-and-paste" asylum applications, as reported by GroundUp.

Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo, with Judges Leonard Twala and Colleen Collis agreeing, found that Manamela MA Attorneys was exploiting vulnerable refugees through a "cottage industry" approach. Many of these refugees, unable to speak English and held in custody pending deportation, were targeted with these applications.

The judges have directed that their decision be communicated to the Legal Practice Council, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, and the National Director of Public Prosecutions for potential further action.

The ruling, issued in late July but only recently made public, addressed concerns of abuse in court processes. The court had previously issued orders on the six applications but held off on deciding costs because the applications, which were nearly identical except for names and countries of origin, appeared to be merely copied from a template.

Judge Mlambo noted that the applications gave the impression of being "cut-and-pasted," with similar grammatical errors throughout. He ordered the attorneys and advocate Sinethemba Vobi, who appeared in the cases, to submit affidavits explaining why they should not be required to pay punitive costs. However, their request for leave to appeal this ruling was denied, and no explanatory affidavits were filed.

In his ruling, Mlambo highlighted other instances of similar abuses within the legal profession, noting that such practices had previously been curtailed in cases involving sequestrations and refugee matters. He found that the six applications were essentially identical, confirming that they were simply variations of a single affidavit, which amounted to an abuse of the court process and exploitation of asylum seekers who likely did not fully understand the documents they were signing.

Judge Mlambo reviewed all cases filed by Manamela MA Attorneys in his division and found 66 cases, mostly against the Minister of Home Affairs, using nearly identical affidavits. While minor spelling and grammatical errors are expected due to language differences, the pervasive replication of mistakes across multiple applications was unacceptable.

He emphasized that cost orders against legal practitioners are rare and should only be imposed in the most serious cases where there is clear misconduct. In this instance, the court's decision to require the firm and advocate to pay costs personally reflects its disapproval of their misleading practices.

Although Mr. Vobi is an advocate, his involvement in all the cases before us indicates that he could not have been unaware of the issues at hand. Their actions must be seen as intentional and reflect a disregard for the interests of their clients and the parties they named as respondents.

Additionally, there was no explanation provided to the court regarding how affidavits were commissioned in English, given that, according to their own documents, the applicants only spoke "broken English."

“We must express our disapproval of this conduct in the strongest terms.”

Judge Mlambo stated that the behavior of the firm and the advocate should be reported to the Legal Practice Council (LPC) for further investigation. The state attorneys who handled these matters must also be held accountable for their failure to recognize the repeated use of identical affidavits.

“This issue needs to be brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice to determine if measures are needed to prevent such abuse.”

Finally, Mlambo emphasized that the deliberate submission of false information to the court, and the subsequent claims for fees for work not actually performed, should be reported to the National Director of Public Prosecutions to assess if any criminal actions have occurred. He ordered that the attorney and advocate personally cover the costs.