Greenfields Drilling CC and Others v Registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal and Others (CCT 53/10) [2010] ZACC 15; 2010 (11) BCLR 1113 (CC) (7 September 2010)

Greenfields Drilling CC and Others v Registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal and Others (CCT 53/10) [2010] ZACC 15; 2010 (11) BCLR 1113 (CC) (7 September 2010)

The Constitutional Court held that the issue raised by the applicants had already been decided in Mphahlele, which established that the Supreme Court of Appeal is not constitutionally obliged to provide reasons for refusing leave to appeal, except in constitutional matters where it is not the final court. As the applicants did not demonstrate that a constitutional issue would arise in their contemplated application for leave to appeal, and none appeared from their papers, the Supreme Court of Appeal was the final instance in this matter. Consequently, the application for direct access to the Constitutional Court was refused.

Citation
[2010] ZACC 15
Parties
Applicant: Greenfields Drilling CC; Applicant: Magaretha Maria Hibbers; Applicant: Marius Hibbers; Respondent: Registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal; Respondent: Government of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: FirstRand Bank Limited
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 September 2010
Case Number
CCT 53/10
Procedural Posture
Direct Access Application / Application for Direct Access to Constitutional Court
Outcome
Application for direct access refused.
Judges
Ngcobo, Moseneke, Brand, Cameron, Froneman, Khampepe, Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Judicial Reasoning, Direct Access, Finality of Litigation
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Judicial Reasoning Direct Access Finality of Litigation

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greenfields Drilling CC

Applicant

Magaretha Maria Hibbers

Applicant

Marius Hibbers

Applicant

Registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal

Respondent

Government of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

FirstRand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Direct Access Application / Application for Direct Access to Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the Supreme Court of Appeal constitutionally obliged to provide reasons when refusing leave to appeal?
  2. 2 Does the absence of reasons for refusal of leave to appeal prejudice applicants seeking access to the Constitutional Court?
  3. 3 Is direct access to the Constitutional Court justified in this matter?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the issue raised by the applicants had already been decided in Mphahlele, which established that the Supreme Court of Appeal is not constitutionally obliged to provide reasons for refusing leave to appeal, except in constitutional matters where it is not the final court. As the applicants did not demonstrate that a constitutional issue would arise in their contemplated application for leave to appeal, and none appeared from their papers, the Supreme Court of Appeal was the final instance in this matter. Consequently, the application for direct access to the Constitutional Court was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for direct access refused.

Orders

  • The application for direct access is refused.