Dormehl v Minister of Justice and Others (CCT10/00) [2000] ZACC 4; 2000 (2) SA 825 ; 2000 (5) BCLR 471 (CC) (14 April 2000)

Dormehl v Minister of Justice and Others (CCT10/00) [2000] ZACC 4; 2000 (2) SA 825 ; 2000 (5) BCLR 471 (CC) (14 April 2000)

The Constitutional Court held that Rule 17, which requires leave for direct access, is specifically sanctioned by the Constitution and does not infringe section 34. The right of audience for corporations and requirements for security for costs or leave to appeal must be challenged in the context of concrete...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] ZACC 4
Parties
Applicant: Johan Georg Dormehl; Respondent: The Minister of Justice; Respondent: The Registrar of Companies; Respondent: Chairman of the Justice Sub Committee; Respondent: Mr Justice J P Roux; Respondent: The Justice and Peace Catholic Church, Pretoria
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 April 2000
Case Number
CCT 10/2000
Procedural Posture
Direct Access Application / Application for Direct Access to Constitutional Court
Outcome
Application for direct access refused.
Judges
Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J, Cameron AJ
Legal Topics
Direct Access, Right of Audience, Security for Costs, Leave to Appeal, Mandamus Against Judge
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Direct Access Right of Audience Security for Costs Leave to Appeal Mandamus Against Judge

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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Georg Dormehl

Applicant

The Minister of Justice

Respondent

The Registrar of Companies

Respondent

Chairman of the Justice Sub Committee

Respondent

Mr Justice J P Roux

Respondent

The Justice and Peace Catholic Church, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Direct Access Application / Application for Direct Access to Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 17 of the Constitutional Court Rules, requiring leave for direct access, is unconstitutional.
  2. 2 Whether the requirement that corporations be represented by legal practitioners in superior courts is unconstitutional.
  3. 3 Whether any provision requiring a litigant to furnish security for costs is unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that Rule 17, which requires leave for direct access, is specifically sanctioned by the Constitution and does not infringe section 34. The right of audience for corporations and requirements for security for costs or leave to appeal must be challenged in the context of concrete disputes, not as abstract questions of law. The applicant failed to demonstrate compelling reasons for direct access or for the mandamus sought against the High Court judge. The application was procedurally defective and did not meet the requirements for direct access. Accordingly, the application for direct access was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for direct access refused.

Orders

  • The application for direct access is refused.