Chonco and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa (CCT94/09) [2010] ZACC 7; 2010 (6) BCLR 511 (CC) (16 March 2010)

Chonco and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa (CCT94/09) [2010] ZACC 7; 2010 (6) BCLR 511 (CC) (16 March 2010)

The Court held that the applicants acted unreasonably by instituting proceedings without first seeking a response from the President regarding the processing of their pardon applications. The President was not a party to the previous litigation and required time to be briefed and to obtain legal advice. The applicants' conduct was precipitate, as they failed to explore alternatives to litigation, such as putting the President on terms or making inquiries. The Court found that the previous costs order in Chonco 1 already served as a public censure for the delay, and it would not be just and equitable to grant further costs for the same delay. Accordingly, no order was made on the...

Citation
[2010] ZACC 7
Parties
Applicant: Mqabukeni Chonco and 383 Others; Respondent: President of the Republic of South Africa
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2010
Case Number
CCT 94/09
Procedural Posture
Direct Access Application / Judgment on Costs Following Withdrawal of Substantive Relief
Outcome
No order is made on the application. No order as to costs.
Judges
Khampepe J, Ngcobo CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Mogoeng J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J
Legal Topics
Presidential Pardon, Unreasonable Delay, Direct Access, Costs Discretion
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Presidential Pardon Unreasonable Delay Direct Access Costs Discretion

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mqabukeni Chonco and 383 Others

Applicant

President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Direct Access Application / Judgment on Costs Following Withdrawal of Substantive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants acted reasonably in instituting proceedings without first seeking a response from the President.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were entitled to a costs order given the history of delay and previous costs award in related litigation.
  3. 3 What constitutes a just and equitable costs order in constitutional litigation where relief is rendered academic.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the applicants acted unreasonably by instituting proceedings without first seeking a response from the President regarding the processing of their pardon applications. The President was not a party to the previous litigation and required time to be briefed and to obtain legal advice. The applicants' conduct was precipitate, as they failed to explore alternatives to litigation, such as putting the President on terms or making inquiries. The Court found that the previous costs order in Chonco 1 already served as a public censure for the delay, and it would not be just and equitable to grant further costs for the same delay. Accordingly, no order was made on the...

Court Disposition

No order is made on the application. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • No order is made on the application.
  • There is no order as to costs.