Cloete and Another v S; Sekgala v Nedbank Limited (CCT324/17; CCT63/18) [2019] ZACC 6; 2019 (5) BCLR 544 (CC); 2019 (4) SA 268 (CC); 2019 (2) SACR 130 (CC) (19 February 2019)
The Constitutional Court held that ordinarily, no appeal lies against a decision of the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal under section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act. Such decisions are generally factual in nature, concerning whether exceptional circumstances exist, and do not engage the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction unless compelling circumstances are present. The President's decision is not a final decision on the merits and does not dispose of the rights of the parties. Allowing appeals against these decisions would create a dual appeal process, leading to piecemeal adjudication and unnecessary prolongation of litigation. Litigants are not prejudiced by this...
- Citation
- [2019] ZACC 6
- Parties
- Applicant: Mathys Johannes Cloete; Applicant: Daniel Nicholas Cloete; Respondent: The State; Amicus: Legal Aid South Africa; Applicant: Rammutlana Boelie Sekgala; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
- Court
- Constitutional Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 19 February 2019
- Case Number
- CCT324/17; CCT63/18
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court Following Refusal by the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal Under Section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act.
- Outcome
- Applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. Condonation is granted for late filings. No order as to costs.
- Judges
- Mogoeng, Basson, Cameron, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Petse, Theron
- Legal Topics
- Superior Courts Act Section 17 2 F, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction of Constitutional Court, Finality of Decisions, Exceptional Circumstances
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mathys Johannes Cloete
Applicant
Daniel Nicholas Cloete
Applicant
The State
Respondent
Legal Aid South Africa
Amicus
Rammutlana Boelie Sekgala
Applicant
Nedbank Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court Following Refusal by the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal Under Section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act.
Legal Issues
- 1 Is a decision by the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal under section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act appealable to the Constitutional Court?
- 2 Does the Constitutional Court have jurisdiction to hear appeals against such decisions?
- 3 Would allowing such appeals create a dual appeal process and prejudice litigants?
Ratio Decidendi
The Constitutional Court held that ordinarily, no appeal lies against a decision of the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal under section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act. Such decisions are generally factual in nature, concerning whether exceptional circumstances exist, and do not engage the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction unless compelling circumstances are present. The President's decision is not a final decision on the merits and does not dispose of the rights of the parties. Allowing appeals against these decisions would create a dual appeal process, leading to piecemeal adjudication and unnecessary prolongation of litigation. Litigants are not prejudiced by this...
Court Disposition
Applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. Condonation is granted for late filings. No order as to costs.
Orders
- The applications for condonation are granted.
- The application for leave to appeal in CCT 324/17 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment