The applicant filed an urgent chamber application for a stay of execution on 22 May 2018. The matter was set down for 24 May 2018 but postponed to 5 June 2018 at the respondents' request to accommodate their counsel of choice. On 5 June 2018, the parties requested more time for out of court settlement discussions and the matter was postponed to 13 June 2018. On 13 June 2018, the parties advised they had reached a settlement in principle. Both parties read out their understanding of the settlement terms before the court, which included: removal of the matter from the roll, a lump sum payment by the applicant towards the outstanding judgment followed by monthly instalments, and payment of costs in the sum of $2,000 to the respondents. The parties undertook to file the written deed of settlement by 14 June 2018. However, instead of filing the settlement agreement, the applicant's legal practitioners filed a notice of renunciation of agency on 14 June 2018, based on the client's letter alleging they were deprived of access to the file and not consulted on actions taken. The matter was re-set down for 20 June 2018, where the applicant's directors (non-legal practitioners) sought time to engage new legal counsel.
The matter was withdrawn from the roll with costs in the sum of $2,000 (two thousand dollars) payable by the applicant to the respondents, in accordance with the settlement agreement reached in principle before the court on 13 June 2018.
When parties reach a settlement agreement in principle before a court, expressly agree to the removal of the matter from the roll, and those terms are recorded by the presiding judge with both parties confirming their understanding and agreement, that settlement is binding and the matter remains removed from the roll regardless of subsequent attempts by one party to resile from the agreement by withdrawing its legal practitioners' mandate. A juristic person cannot be represented in court proceedings by its directors or officers who are not registered legal practitioners.
The court commended the parties for finding each other and reaching a settlement, thereby saving valuable time. The court noted that out of courtesy it would hear from the applicant's directors on this occasion despite the difficulty of them representing a juristic person without being registered legal practitioners. The court observed that the settlement terms were not complicated. The judgment also serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of attempting to renege on settlement agreements reached in court, and emphasizes the importance of clients maintaining proper communication with their legal representatives during settlement negotiations.
This case is significant for establishing that settlement agreements reached in principle before a court and recorded by the judge are binding on the parties, and a party cannot unilaterally resile from such an agreement by simply withdrawing its legal practitioners' mandate. It reinforces the principle that once a matter has been removed from the roll by consent of both parties in the context of a settlement, it cannot be re-opened. The case also highlights the important principle that juristic persons (such as companies) cannot be represented in court by their directors unless those directors are registered legal practitioners, reflecting the rule against non-lawyers practicing law. The judgment emphasizes the court's role in holding parties to settlements reached in its presence and the finality of such agreements once recorded.