Beyers v Eleven Judges of the Constitutional Court (CCT25/02) [2002] ZACC 19; 2002 (6) SA 630; 2002 (10) BCLR 1001 (10 September 2002)

Beyers v Eleven Judges of the Constitutional Court (CCT25/02) [2002] ZACC 19; 2002 (6) SA 630; 2002 (10) BCLR 1001 (10 September 2002)

The application was dismissed on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, the applicant failed to comply with the requirements for direct access to the Constitutional Court, as he did not motivate why the interests of justice warranted such access. Substantively, the relief sought was based on a misunderstanding of the law: courts of final instance, including the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, are not required to provide reasons when refusing leave to appeal. This practice is justified by policy and practical considerations, including the need to control the court's docket and avoid wasting judicial resources on unmeritorious appeals. The refusal of...

Citation
[2002] ZACC 19
Parties
Applicant: Karel Eduard Beyers; Respondent: Eleven Judges of the Constitutional Court
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 2002
Case Number
CCT25/02
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Direct Access and Constitutional Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Chaskalson HR, Langa AHR, Ackermann R, Goldstone R, Kriegler R, Madala R, Mokgoro R, Ngcobo R, O'Regan R, Sachs R, Yacoob R
Legal Topics
Direct Access to Constitutional Court, Judicial Immunity, Reasons for Refusal of Leave to Appeal, Constitutional Right to Appeal
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Direct Access to Constitutional Court Judicial Immunity Reasons for Refusal of Leave to Appeal Constitutional Right to Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karel Eduard Beyers

Applicant

Eleven Judges of the Constitutional Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Direct Access and Constitutional Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to damages against judges for refusal of leave to appeal without reasons.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of leave to appeal without reasons violates the applicant's constitutional rights.
  3. 3 Whether section 25(1) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 is unconstitutional for limiting actions against judges.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, the applicant failed to comply with the requirements for direct access to the Constitutional Court, as he did not motivate why the interests of justice warranted such access. Substantively, the relief sought was based on a misunderstanding of the law: courts of final instance, including the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, are not required to provide reasons when refusing leave to appeal. This practice is justified by policy and practical considerations, including the need to control the court's docket and avoid wasting judicial resources on unmeritorious appeals. The refusal of...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.