Brummer v Gorfil Brothers Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT45/99) [2000] ZACC 3; 2000 (5) BCLR 465 ; 2000 (2) SA 837 (CC) (30 March 2000)

Brummer v Gorfil Brothers Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT45/99) [2000] ZACC 3; 2000 (5) BCLR 465 ; 2000 (2) SA 837 (CC) (30 March 2000)

The Constitutional Court refused condonation for the late filing of the application for special leave to appeal. The sale in execution occurred before the interim Constitution and the Constitution took effect, and there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting retrospective application of constitutional...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] ZACC 3
Parties
Applicant: Paulus Phillipus Brummer; Respondent: Gorfil Brothers Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Estate of the Late Solly Gorfil; Respondent: David Gorfil; Respondent: Nylstroom Hotel CC
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2000
Case Number
CCT45/99
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Special Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Yacoob, Chaskalson, Langa, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Cameron
Legal Topics
Access to Courts, Retrospective Application of Constitution, Sale in Execution, Development of Common Law
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Access to Courts Retrospective Application of Constitution Sale in Execution Development of Common Law

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paulus Phillipus Brummer

Applicant

Gorfil Brothers Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Estate of the Late Solly Gorfil

Respondent

David Gorfil

Respondent

Nylstroom Hotel CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Special Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation for late filing of application for special leave to appeal should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the sale in execution of the applicant's right in pending proceedings was contrary to public policy or constitutional principles.
  3. 3 Whether the Constitution or interim Constitution applies retrospectively to the sale in execution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court refused condonation for the late filing of the application for special leave to appeal. The sale in execution occurred before the interim Constitution and the Constitution took effect, and there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting retrospective application of constitutional principles. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delays, and his conduct after the sale was not sufficiently diligent. The interests of justice did not favour granting condonation, and the application was dismissed. The Court declined to develop the common law retrospectively in this instance and made no order as to costs, following its usual practice in...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.