Court number 11, New Court House, Port-Louis. It?s Tuesday morning and magistrate Nuroshini Ramsoondur is presiding. The magistrate walks in at half past nine and the court is swarmed with lawyers, plaintiffs, respondents and witnesses. The scowl magistrate Ramsoondur wears on her face is just about to deepen. The hint always comes with this seemingly innocuous sentence from the lawyers : ?Your honour, I have a small predicament.?

The ?predicament? always has to do with some minor problem that gains in momentum as the lawyer tries to argue with a magistrate who seems fed up with excuses she has heard much too often. On that particular day, of the first six cases that were called before magistrate Ramsoondur, legal representatives of five of them had ?a small predicament? and they needed a postponement of the case.

?No!? says the magistrate, a sullen expression on her face. And the lawyers stammer, trying to find a way to convince the magistrate of the need to postpone their cases. In one case, magistrate Ramsoondur reluctantly agrees to a postponement. But the dates the lawyers (of both sides) propose don?t seem to please her. ?What? The 15th of October? No, I don?t think we should wait that long. This case has been dragged on since 2005, we need to find an earlier date,? she insists. To no avail. Both lawyers say they don?t have any ?free? dates before the 15th of October and thus the magistrate, despite all her goodwill, doesn?t manage to book an early trial date.

<I> ?You have been coming and going with this case right, left and center!? she insists. The lawyer still wants a postponement. ?No, no postponement.? </I>

Second case. The lawyers ask for a postponement. ?Why?? wants to know the magistrate. Some report relevant to the case hasn?t been given to the other party. The magistrate thinks the excuse is flimsy. ?Why haven?t you given a copy of the report to the other side if it has been ready for a while?? she asks. Some more feeble excuse. ?And you want a postponement on those grounds?? the magistrate asks, clearly puzzled. Yes, both lawyers say.

Angry and not bothering to hide her feelings, the magistrate reminds one of the lawyers that earlier ?you asked for a postponement because you had to appear before the Supreme Court.? Still no reaction on the part of the lawyers. And so, magistrate Ramsoondur reluctantly agrees : ?In those circumstances, postponement is granted. The earliest date is in December.? The lawyers seem overjoyed with the news and the magistrate?s face takes on a gloomier appearance.

Third case. Another ?small predicament.? The magistrate refuses a postponement but agrees to give another hour to the lawyer so that his witnesses are ready when she will call the case next.

Fourth case. Same problem. Magistrate again refuses to grant postponement but agrees to hear the case some time later on the same day.

Fifth case. The case was due to be argued? but the lawyers say they are not ready but give no reasons why that is. And the long-suffering magistrate loses her temper. ?What is the point of fixing the case for argument when you are not ready to argue?? she asks, raising her voice. The plaintiff?s lawyer?s reply is inaudible.

?You need to take a stand?, she lectures him, sensing that the lawyer was at a complete loss to take any stand. ?You have been coming and going with this case right, left and center!? she insists. The lawyer still wants a postponement. ?No, no postponement. The case will be heard today itself!? she insists, temper thrown out of the window. ?I will give you until 10.30. Not a minute more,? she finally decides, before adding, ?I have other commitments?. The lawyers have no choice but to bow down to her decision.

Outside the courtroom, the plaintiffs and defendants have no clue as to what is happening to their cases. They do not know why their cases are being postponed and they have no idea why the magistrate is getting angry.

We speak to a few lawyers who were lucky enough not to appear in court number 11 on that particular day. Is the magistrate?s firmness warranted? we ask. ?Yes and no,? replies one lawyer. She admits that it is true that ?some? lawyers use postponements as delaying tactics but argues that some are genuinely busy because ?they have too many cases?.

And then, another lawyer adds by way of explanation,?I am appearing in court today practically under duress because the magistrate imposed the dates on me. I am obviously not motivated to argue the case but I don?t have a choice.?

In the meantime, a plaintiff, standing a few metres away, is talking on his cell phone. He is trying to get someone to lend him the necessary funds to pay his lawyer?