from any power of the court under these rules the court may issue an ‘Without derogating order – refusing to allow the noncompliant party to support or oppose any claims or defences; striking out pleadings or part thereof, including any defence, exception or special plea; dismissing a claim or entering a final judgment; or directing the non-compliant party or his or her legal practitioner to pay the opposing costs caused by the non-compliance’. party’s [13] What is clear is that the court is given a panoply of alternative suitable orders to issue as a means of sanctioning a party that has failed explanation ‘without reasonable’ or excuse to comply with a order or direction. What is implicit in the foregoing rule court’s is that the sanctions take place after the party has been afforded an opportunity to explain and show cause why they may not be so censured. There is good reason why this should be the case. It boils down to the principles of natural justice, which require that a man or woman should not be judged unheard. Put differently, no person should have an adverse order issued against him or her without him or her having been afforded an opportunity to address or deal with that proposed order or sanction. [14] It must be pointed out that the refrain, in the sanctions enquiry, is for the court, at the end of the day, to issue an order that is in all the circumstances of the case just and fair. This means that there can be no one size-fits-all order. The court should, in fashioning an appropriate order in a case, have regard to all the pertinent factors and circumstances. Having done so, it will then be properly placed to issue a sanctions order, if called for, which meets the justice of the case. [15] In dealing with the provisions of the above subrules, the court stated the following in Benedicta Donatus v Dr. A. Muhamederahimo and Three Others: is clear from the foregoing that the court, in applying sanctions to an errant party, ‘It exercises a discretion and has at its disposal a panoply of alternatives in terms of punishing a party that is in default of a court order or direction. In this regard, it would seem to me that the
‘Without derogating from any power of the court under these rules the court may issue an order – refusing to allow the noncompliant party to support or oppose any claims or defences; striking out pleadings or part thereof, including any defence, exception or special plea; dismissing a claim or entering a final judgment; or directing the non-compliant party or his or her legal practitioner to pay the opposing party’s costs caused by the non-compliance’. [13] What is clear is that the court is given a panoply of alternative suitable orders to issue as a means of sanctioning a party that has failed ‘without reasonable’ explanation or excuse to comply with a court’s order or direction. What is implicit in the foregoing rule is that the sanctions take place after the party has been afforded an opportunity to explain and show cause why they may not be so censured. There is good reason why this should be the case. It boils down to the principles of natural justice, which require that a man or woman should not be judged unheard. Put differently, no person should have an adverse order issued against him or her without him or her having been afforded an opportunity to address or deal with that proposed order or sanction. [14] It must be pointed out that the refrain, in the sanctions enquiry, is for the court, at the end of the day, to issue an order that is in all the circumstances of the case just and fair. This means that there can be no one size-fits-all order. The court should, in fashioning an appropriate order in a case, have regard to all the pertinent factors and circumstances. Having done so, it will then be properly placed to issue a sanctions order, if called for, which meets the justice of the case. [15] In dealing with the provisions of the above subrules, the court stated the following in Benedicta Donatus v Dr. A. Muhamederahimo and Three Others: ‘It is clear from the foregoing that the court, in applying sanctions to an errant party, exercises a discretion and has at its disposal a panoply of alternatives in terms of punishing a party that is in default of a court order or direction. In this regard, it would seem to me that the