Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund (CCT4/98) [1998] ZACC 11; 1998 (4) SA 753; 1998 (10) BCLR 1207 (27 August 1998)

Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund (CCT4/98) [1998] ZACC 11; 1998 (4) SA 753; 1998 (10) BCLR 1207 (27 August 1998)

The Constitutional Court held that although the issues raised were important and warranted the attention of a higher court, the appeal should first be dealt with by the Supreme Court of Appeal, not directly by the Constitutional Court. The Supreme Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to develop the common law in accordance with both the interim and 1996 Constitutions, including deciding whether such development applies to causes of action arising before the Constitutions came into force. The Constitutional Court emphasised that its jurisdiction to develop the common law in constitutional matters should not ordinarily be exercised without the matter first being considered by the Supreme Court...

Citation
[1998] ZACC 11
Parties
Applicant: Hafiza Ismail Amod (born Peer); Respondent: Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 August 1998
Case Number
CCT 4/98
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Directly to the Constitutional Court From the Durban and Coast High Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court refused as premature.
Judges
Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann J, Didcott J, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Development of Common Law, Bill of Rights Application, Jurisdiction of Courts
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Leave to Appeal Development of Common Law Bill of Rights Application Jurisdiction of Courts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hafiza Ismail Amod (born Peer)

Applicant

Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Directly to the Constitutional Court From the Durban and Coast High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Constitutional Court have jurisdiction to hear an appeal in this matter, or does the Supreme Court of Appeal also have jurisdiction?
  2. 2 Should leave to appeal be granted directly to the Constitutional Court or should the matter first be dealt with by the Supreme Court of Appeal?
  3. 3 Is the applicant's claim based on the direct application of the Bill of Rights or on the development of the common law?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that although the issues raised were important and warranted the attention of a higher court, the appeal should first be dealt with by the Supreme Court of Appeal, not directly by the Constitutional Court. The Supreme Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to develop the common law in accordance with both the interim and 1996 Constitutions, including deciding whether such development applies to causes of action arising before the Constitutions came into force. The Constitutional Court emphasised that its jurisdiction to develop the common law in constitutional matters should not ordinarily be exercised without the matter first being considered by the Supreme Court...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court refused as premature.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal directly to this Court from the decision given by Meskin J in the Durban and Coast High Court is refused.
  • No order as to costs.