Helen Suzman Foundation v The Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (484/2021) [2023] ZASCA 6 (3 February 2023)
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the Biowatch principle was ignored or that the discretion in awarding costs was exercised improperly. The court found no evidence of grave injustice that would justify reconsideration of the costs order. The principles governing costs in constitutional...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] ZASCA 6
- Parties
- Applicant: Helen Suzman Foundation; Respondent: The Speaker of the National Assembly; Respondent: The President of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: The Cabinet of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces; Respondent: The Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 484/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Application for Reconsideration of Costs Order After Dismissal of Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for reconsideration dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Dambuza, Plasket, Mabindla-Boqwana, Basson, Chetty
- Legal Topics
- Costs Awards, Leave to Appeal, Biowatch Principle, Judicial Discretion
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Helen Suzman Foundation
Applicant
The Speaker of the National Assembly
Respondent
The President of the Republic of South Africa
Respondent
The Cabinet of the Republic of South Africa
Respondent
Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces
Respondent
The Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Reconsideration of Costs Order After Dismissal of Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the costs order made against the applicant upon dismissal of its petition for leave to appeal should be reconsidered.
- 2 Whether the Biowatch principle was ignored or improperly applied in awarding costs against the applicant.
- 3 Whether grave injustice would result if the costs order were to stand.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the Biowatch principle was ignored or that the discretion in awarding costs was exercised improperly. The court found no evidence of grave injustice that would justify reconsideration of the costs order. The principles governing costs in constitutional litigation were properly considered, and the applicant's conduct did not warrant protection from an adverse costs order. Accordingly, the application for reconsideration was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
Application for reconsideration dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for reconsideration is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case No: 484/2021
In the matter between:
HELEN SUZMAN FOUNDATION APPLICANT
and
THE SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL
ASSEMBLY
FIRST RESPONDENT
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA SECOND RESPONDENT
THE CABINET OF THE REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA THIRD RESPONDENT
CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF PROVINCES FOURTH RESPONDENT
THE MINISTER OF COOPERATIVE
GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL
AFFAIRS
FIFTH RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Helen Suzman Foundation v The Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (484/2021) [2023] ZASCA 6 (03 February 2023)
Coram: DAMBUZA, PLASKET and MABINDLA-BOQWANA JJA, and BASSON and CHETTY AJJA
Heard: This appeal was, by consent between the parties, disposed of without an oral hearing in terms of s 19(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives via e-mail, publication on the Supreme Court of Appeal website and released to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down are deemed to be 11h00 on 03 February 2023.
Summary: Reconsideration application brought in terms of s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 – the inquiry is whether grave injustice would result if the order sought to be reconsidered were to stand – in this case the basis of the reconsideration application was that costs in an application for leave to appeal should not have been granted against the applicant based on the Biowatch principle – no evidence that the relevant principles were ignored or that discretion was exercised improperly in making the costs award.
ORDER
On application for reconsideration: referred by Maya P in terms of s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013:
The application is dismissed with costs.
Dambuza JA (Plasket and Mabindla-Boqwana JJA and Basson and Chetty AJJA concurring)
Introduction
[1] This is an application, brought by the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) in terms of s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, for the reconsideration of an adverse costs order made pursuant to this court’s dismissal of the HSF’s petition for leave to appeal against an order of a full court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (the full court). The President of this court referred the reconsideration of the costs order for argument in open court and the parties agreed that it should be determined without oral argument, in terms of s 19(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
[1] S v Liesching and Others [2018] ZACC 25; 2019 (4) SA 219 (CC); 2018 (11) BCLR 1349 (CC); 2019 (1) SACR 178 (CC) paras 138-139.
[2] Biowatch Trust v Registrar, Genetic Resources and Others [2009] ZACC 14; 2009 (6) SA 232 (CC); 2009 (10) BCLR 1014 (CC) para 23. See too Affordable Medicines Trust and Others v Minister of Health and Another [2005] ZACC 3; 2006 (3) SA 247 (CC); 2005 (6) BCLR 529 (CC) para 138.
[3] Para 24.
[4] Affordable Medicines Trust (note 2) para 138.
[5] Motala v Master, North Gauteng High Court [2019] ZASCA 60; 2019 (6) SA 68 (SCA) para 98.
[6] Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister in the Presidency and Others [2016] ZACC 45; 2017 (1) SA 645 (CC); 2017 (4) BCLR 445 (CC) para 18.
[7] President, RSA and Another v Women’s Legal Centre Trust and Others [2020] ZASCA 177; 2021 (2) SA 381 (SCA).
[8] Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2011] ZACC 6; 2011 (3) SA 347 (CC); 2011 (7) BCLR 651 (CC) at paras 65 to 68.
[9] Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (Centre for Applied Legal Studies intervening) [2001] ZACC 22; 2001(4) SA 938 (CC)[2001] ZACC 22; ; 2001 (10) BCLR 995 (CC) para 44.
[10] Women’s Legal Centre Trust (note 7) para 43.
[11] The respondents referred to the judgment in the answering papers in the application for leave to appeal and HSF responded in its replying papers.
[12] See s16.
[13]Liesching; para 118; see footnote 1.
[14] Ibid para 36; see also Notshokovu v S [2016] ZASCA 112; 2016 JDR 1647 (SCA) para 2.