The House of Representatives last Tuesday unanimously passed three companion Bills aimed at enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

Dr Peter Phillips, leader of government business in the House and minister of national security, piloted the Bills.

They include, the Judicature (Appellate Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Act, 2003, the Judicature (Supreme Court) (Amendment) Act, 2003, and the Judicature (Civil Procedure Code) Law (Repeal) Act, 2003.

A fourth Bill, the Judicature (Supreme Court) (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act, 2003, was not taken through all its stages by Dr Phillips because a number of attorneys practising Admiralty Law had indicated some issues about that Bill, which they wanted to discuss further.

The Lower House’s approval of the measures came three weeks after the Senate unanimously passed the companion Bills, which were piloted by Attorney-General and Justice Minister A J Nicholson.

The Bills are aimed at bringing better justice to litigants, speeding up the court process, and reducing costs. They give more teeth to the new rules and procedures, which were implemented by the Rules Committee of the Supreme Court last year and came into effect on January 1, 2003.

The new rules replaced the 1889 Judicature (Civil Procedure Code) Law, which had become outdated and incapable of responding to recent developments in the administration of justice, such as case management and alternate dispute resolution. Therefore, the new rules are to guide the future procedures and practices that are to be followed in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

Additionally, the new rules apply to all civil proceedings in the Supreme Court, other than family proceedings, personal bankruptcy, corporate insolvency proceedings, proceedings where the court acts as a prize court and proceedings under the Act which provides for its own rules.

The new rules will also apply to all appeals to the Court of Appeal, including appeals in criminal matters. The new rules state that they are subject to the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly. They seek to achieve this overriding objective in various ways, by ensuring that parties are on an equal footing, saving expense and ensuring that cases are dealt with expeditiously and fairly.

Some of the specific changes implemented in these rules include the court’s role in the management of cases, which is greatly increased. “The progress of a case will no longer depend primarily on how active or inactive the respective lawyers are,” Dr Phillips said.

He also explained that there would be greater focus and opportunity for the resolution of cases by court-supervised mediation, one of the far-reaching developments. Additionally, he said there would be a method to reduce the number of journeys and the length of trials by virtue of earlier pre-trial discovery and exchange of documents.

In addition, the language and procedures used in the court will be much simplified to make it understandable to the ordinary citizen. As a consequence for example, a suit in the Supreme Court, which now could be started by a writ of summons and originating summon or petition, depending on the nature of the claim, can now begin with a claim form.

Other simplifications are that the new rules refer to applications without notice, instead of ex-parte summons; freezing orders instead of Mareva injunctions, and search orders instead of Anton Pillar orders.