Mbabane : The Eswatini Development and Savings Bank (Eswatini Bank) is opposing an application by the Swaziland Medical Aid Fund (EswatiniMed) and its Principal Officer, Peter Simelane, to consolidate three pending appeals before the Supreme Court, arguing that the matters are legally distinct and that consolidation would cause prejudice.
The applicants have approached the Supreme Court seeking an order to consolidate appeal proceedings under case numbers 24/2025, 26/2025 and 31/2025. According to their heads of argument, the appeals arise from the same High Court proceedings under case number 2807/2024 and were determined within a week by the same presiding judge, Justice Titus Mlangeni.
They argue that the appeals are interrelated, stem from the same factual matrix, and involve the same parties. The applicants contend that consolidation would promote convenience, avoid piecemeal litigation and eliminate the risk of conflicting judgments.
The first appeal, under case number 24/2025, challenges an order issued on March 31, 2025. In that order, the High Court interdicted EswatiniMed from terminating medical aid coverage for 165 employees of Eswatini Bank pending the determination of the main application.
In their grounds of appeal, the applicants allege that Justice Mlangeni erred in law by presiding over the matter despite alleged bias, claiming the order benefited his wife, who is said to be an employee of the respondent. They further contend that they were denied a fair hearing, alleging that the court refused to hear their submissions, denied them legal representation of their choice, and prevented them from formally pursuing a recusal application.
The second appeal, under case number 26/2025, relates to an order issued on April 4, 2025 directing the National Commissioner of Police to arrest Simelane and bring him before the court. This followed proceedings relating to alleged non-compliance with the March 31 order.
In this appeal, the applicants argue that the warrant of arrest was issued without affording Simelane a hearing, thereby violating his constitutional rights, including protection from unlawful deprivation of liberty. They also contend that the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed after an appeal had already been noted against the earlier order.
The third appeal, under case number 31/2025, challenges orders issued on April 7, 2025, in which both EswatiniMed and Simelane were found guilty of contempt of court. The High Court imposed a fine of E100,000 on the fund and sentenced Simelane to 60 days’ imprisonment, half of which was suspended, with an option to pay E30,000 in lieu of part of the custodial sentence.
The applicants argue that the contempt proceedings were conducted irregularly and without affording them a fair hearing. They maintain that the orders were granted despite pending appeals, which they say should have automatically suspended execution of the earlier judgment.
They further submit that Justice Mlangeni should have recused himself due to an alleged conflict of interest linked to his family’s medical aid membership, which they claim is connected to the dispute over employees’ participation in medical aid schemes.
In their application, the applicants state that all three appeals arise from the same sequence of events and involve overlapping legal and factual issues, including recusal, jurisdiction and the effect of noting an appeal on execution of a judgment.
They argue that the initial order led directly to the contempt proceedings and subsequent arrest order, making the appeals inseparable. They submit that consolidation would allow the Supreme Court to consider all issues collectively, thereby ensuring consistency and efficiency.
The applicants further contend that key issues, such as whether the presiding judge ought to have recused himself and whether the noting of an appeal suspended the operation of the orders, cut across all three appeals. They argue that a finding in their favour on these issues would render several grounds of appeal academic.
They also maintain that the consolidation would ease the burden on the court by allowing a single bench to determine all related issues, rather than multiple benches potentially issuing conflicting decisions on the same matter.
Eswatini Bank, in its opposing heads of argument, rejects the application, stating that consolidation is neither appropriate nor justified in the circumstances.
The bank argues that the three appeals arise from distinct proceedings, each involving separate legal questions, causes of action and court orders. It maintains that the matters are not sufficiently similar to warrant consolidation.
According to the respondent, the first appeal concerns an interim interdict and issues such as recusal and the appealability of interlocutory orders. The second appeal deals with the lawfulness of an arrest order and the requirement for a party’s presence in court. The third appeal focuses on contempt of court proceedings, including conviction and sentencing.
The bank submits that these issues are legally discrete and require independent adjudication.
The respondent also raises procedural concerns, stating that the applicants failed to file their heads of argument within the prescribed time limits when the matters were initially set down for hearing in August 2025.
It submits that the consolidation application was brought after it had intended to seek an order striking the appeals off the roll due to non-compliance. The bank argues that the application is an attempt to avoid the consequences of that procedural default and constitutes an abuse of court process.
The bank further contends that compliance with court rules is mandatory and that failure to comply exposes a party to adverse consequences, including dismissal or removal from the roll.
A central argument by the respondent is that consolidation would result in substantial prejudice. It states that the combined appeals raise at least 27 grounds, which would create an unwieldy and complex process.
The bank argues that it would be burdened with addressing numerous issues simultaneously, thereby undermining its ability to properly present its case and potentially affecting its right to a fair hearing.
It also submits that consolidation would conflate distinct legal issues, including interlocutory relief, contempt proceedings, jurisdictional questions and recusal, leading to procedural confusion.
The respondent further points out that the parties in the appeals are not identical. In case number 24/2025, only EswatiniMed is cited as the appellant, whereas in the other two appeals, both EswatiniMed and Simelane are appellants.
It argues that the difference in parties introduces additional factual and legal considerations, making consolidation inappropriate.
Eswatini Bank also raises a preliminary objection regarding the competence of the first appeal, arguing that it is directed against an interlocutory order, which is generally not appealable without leave.
It submits that this issue should be determined independently and that consolidation could limit its ability to fully ventilate this preliminary point, which could dispose of the appeal at the outset.
The respondent maintains that the requirements for consolidation, including convenience and absence of prejudice, have not been met. It argues that the appeals involve different legal issues, distinct factual circumstances and separate parties.
Eswatini Bank has therefore asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the application for consolidation with costs, while the applicants continue to seek a single, consolidated hearing of all three appeals arising from the High Court proceedings.
Discussion about this post