This article was authored by candidate attorney Lucrecia Sadhaseev and overseen by partner Thethe Mokele.

As South Africa proudly enters into a new decade, the time has finally come for the judiciary to pioneer and harness the benefits of digital revolution to improve access to the justice system.

During January 2020, Gauteng Division Judge President Dunstan Mlambo issued Practice Directive 1 of 2020 ("Practice Directive") and Practice Directive 2 of 2020 ("Practice Directive 2") ("collectively referred to as the Practice Directives") which introduce the CaseLines Digital Litigation System ("CaseLines"). CaseLines, essentially, is an electronic system on which parties may upload court documents relevant to a particular matter. Once uploaded, the court and the parties are jointly able to view and refer to such documents in court during argument. Through CaseLines, litigation is digitally conducted on an electronic platform.

Significantly, Practice Directive 2 amends the Practice Manual of the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria and Johannesburg ("Practice Manual") to include requirements for parties to 'file' documents by uploading them on CaseLines. The effective date for the use of CaseLines is 27 January 2020.

While CaseLines is likely to reduce challenges faced by litigants such as the misplacing of court files and travelling costs for filing documents, certain requirements relating to the functioning of CaseLines have some shortcomings. These requirements are: the electronic filing of court documents, the indexing and pagination of court documents in accordance with the manual and the CaseLines indexing and pagination system, and the requirement that legal representation is required to upload court documents on Case Lines. Preceding a discussion on these shortcomings, this article will discuss how legal representatives gain access to CaseLines.

Access to CaseLines

Legal representatives gain access to CaseLines once the court registrar invites them, by email, to CaseLines. Legal representatives must then register on CaseLines on the following website: sajustice.CaseLines.com. Thereafter, they will have access to the CaseLines digital platform and be able to upload their court documents, view court documents uploaded by other parties in the same matter and invite counsel to CaseLines. Counsel and the presiding judge use CaseLines during court proceedings.

Challenges arising from the use of CaseLines:

Electronic filing of court documents

According to the Practice Directives, court documents in relation to cases designated to be heard by means of CaseLines must be uploaded by the party responsible for filing the said court documents in accordance with the time periods set out in the Uniform Rules of Court (the "Rules"), except for cases initiated on the urgent court roll. Significantly, uploading court documents on CaseLines shall amount to 'filing' as contemplated in the Rules.

Legal representatives are not allowed to file hard copies of court documents at court in circumstances where their matters are designated to be heard by means of CaseLines. This leads to a consideration of Rule 4A(5) which provides direction in relation to the filing of court documents.

It indicates that:

'the filing with the registrar of originals of documents and notices referred to in this rule shall not

be done by way of facsimile or electronic mail.'

Rule 4A(5) suggests that only hard copies of court documents may be filed with the court registrar, and electronic filing of court documents is not permitted. Since the Practice Directives permit court documents to be filed electronically on CaseLines, this

appears to be inconsistent with Rule 4A(5) which prohibits filing of documents by facsimile or electronic mail.

Indexing and pagination

Clause 2 of Practice Directive 2 amends the rules relating to enrolment of opposed motions. Paragraph 12 of chapter 9.8.2 of the Practice Manual has been amended to read as follows:

'A party to an opposed motion may apply to the Registrar to allocate a date for the hearing of that

application in terms of Rule 6(5)(f) of the Rules only if:

  • the papers have been properly secured, indexed and paginated provided that this shall not be necessary if the matter has been created and is handled through the CaseLines Digital Litigation Platform; and
  • heads of argument accompanied by a practice note from each party have been delivered and/or digitally uploaded on the CaseLines Digital Litigation Platform.'

The consequence of this amendment is that while the amendment removes the requirement for indexing and pagination in respect of opposed motions, it does not remove this requirement for the remaining categories of matters to be heard by means of CaseLines. For example, amendments have not been effected to paragraph 11 of chapter 9.9.2 of the Practice Manual which provides for the indexing and pagination of unopposed motions once they have been finally enrolled.

Clause 3.1 of Practice Directive 2 relating to Rule 43 Applications provides that all Rule 43 Applications issued from 27 January 2020 must be initiated on CaseLines. Once applications have been issued at court and served, applicants must upload their court documents on CaseLines. The court registrar will subsequently invite respondents to file their answering affidavits on CaseLines. Thereafter, all court documents must be uploaded on CaseLines by the responsible party.

Clause 3.3 of Practice Directive 2 relating to Rule 43 Applications, however, reads as follows:

'Every Rule 43 application set down for hearing shall be duly paginated and be accompanied by a practice note...'

This clause does not make any exception that opposed Rule 43 Applications which are designated to be heard by means of CaseLines should not comply with the indexing and pagination requirement. Instead, the clause expressly stipulates that "every" Rule 43 Application must be indexed and paginated.

The practical difficulty arising from court documents which are required to be paginated manually and by means of CaseLines is that, when these documents have been uploaded on CaseLines, the manual pagination does not mirror the CaseLines pagination. Unfortunately, this causes confusion during argument in court and can lead to a waste of time in that counsel

will have to refer to the manual and CaseLines pagination each time he/she refers to a court document.

Legal representation required to upload court documents on CaseLines

The exception to the rule that no hard copies of court documents may be filed at court for cases designated to be heard by means of CaseLines is where a party is unrepresented. The introduction of this exception suggests that only parties who have legal representation are required to utilise CaseLines. While there are endeavours to improve access to justice for those who cannot afford legal representation, it appears that CaseLines is not designed for this purpose. While those who can afford legal representation will be gaining the benefits of CaseLines, others will still be affected by the inefficiencies in the justice system.

The way forward

To ensure success of CaseLines, it is suggested that the following proposals be taken into consideration:

  • The requirement of manual indexing and pagination in relation to matters other than opposed motions should also be eliminated. Consequently, this will require an amendment to the relevant chapters of the Practice Manual.
  • The apparent inconsistencies between the Rules and the Practice Directives must be addressed to ensure harmony between the Rules and the Practice Manual.
  • Judges and legal representatives will have to be extremely vigilant during court proceedings to ensure that everyone has, on their laptop screens, the correct document and are on the same CaseLines page.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.