“I ended up in Court the other day. For legalistic reasons it is best that am not specific”, began Ajakait. So, what were you in Court for, I asked her? She was vague about that as well, for legalistic reasons apparently. I actually think it is best that I let Ajakait’s voice tell the story without any more interruptions. And so here goes Ajakait:
I swear if we were to judge you, executive types, I mean, and your organisations by the type of legal counsel you retain to represent you in Courts of Law, eeh, some of you really, eeh! Mmmmm some of your lawyers, well, kind of shame you in Court, and moreover, sometimes you are not even there to see how bad it is. Otherwise, some of you would re-think signing those legal fees cheques.
Can you imagine there is this organisation which retained a lawyer who advised it that it was okay to argue in court that an employment contract can be detached from an organisation’s human resources policy? Banange! How is that a thing to be argued in Court in front of a judge?
Obviously, that argument was going nowhere, for a human resources policy forms the basis of a contract of employment – plain clear and simple. But, anyway, I suppose, sometimes you really cannot blame such type lawyers.
I know of another organisation where the magistrate kind of ignored the fact that the lawyers of the former employee of that organisation had argued that the annexes to the human resources policy were independent of the policy and that the annexes could be used outside of the policy… he he he, those are your lawyers, eeh!
So, anyway, back to that organisation where the lawyer’s argument was that the human resources policy and the contract of employment can be detached. The organisation lost the case and was ordered to pay the former employee compensation to the tune of a shillings figure in the higher eight digits.
Then there were those lawyers who clearly irritated the judge for they seemed not to have taken the directives of the Court seriously. They were warned and given a last chance. Nze I was there thinking, is the problem with the executives of those organisations who retained those lawyers or is it with the lawyers? It just did not look good bambi.
For me, the self-appointed observer, the award for the most negligent lawyer went to that one that came to court ill-dressed and the judge could not see him. Anti munange, in legalese, if a lawyer is not appropriately dressed he is invisible to the judge. You would expect that that would have been covered in Law Lesson 101.
Anyways, this guy had the audacity to come in front of the judge with no tie. So, he was considered not in court, told to sit down and he just sat there like a lumps of yesterday’s cold potatoes, while opposing counsel was given free will to proceed.
Oba he used witchcraft – I mean the invisible one – the one given free will to proceed wasted the opportunity, fumbling, fumbling, like that, like that – he was not prepared to proceed … wowe! Just in case, you think am too negative, banange it was that bad.
But, I must admit, although there was a lot of drama that raised my eyebrows, it was not all bad. It seems Courts of Law are male dominated, but there are also some women, of whom some are really hot, hot, hot lawyers – properly dressed, articulate, and on point. It was a delight to watch one such she-lawyer trounce, trounce male opposing counsel.
Yes, there was also an exceptionally good male lawyer who was representing a certain organisation, which surely must have a top notch executive. Eeh! Am talking, just leave, this guy was like he was straight from the cast of those television legal drama series like “Suits”. He was on point with the law; he was articulate; he had presence; his well fitting suit eh! – Simply nothing to add, for he was all there.
I could not but feel sorry for his opposing counsel. Era bambi the opposing counsel who was up against the Suits-like-lawyer-guy was rendered a dithering mess. And you could literally see it on the face of the judge. Those are your lawyers.