Hotz and Others v University of Cape Town (CCT280/16) [2017] ZACC 10; 2017 (7) BCLR 815 (CC); 2018 (1) SA 369 (CC) (12 April 2017)

Hotz and Others v University of Cape Town (CCT280/16) [2017] ZACC 10; 2017 (7) BCLR 815 (CC); 2018 (1) SA 369 (CC) (12 April 2017)

The Constitutional Court held that while the applicants' conduct during the protest went beyond the boundaries of peaceful and non-violent demonstration, the High Court failed to properly situate its costs order within the constitutional context. The issues raised by the applicants were of genuine constitutional import, and their opposition to the University's application was neither frivolous nor vexatious. The High Court did not exercise its discretion judicially by failing to consider the chilling effect of an adverse costs order on constitutional litigation. The Supreme Court of Appeal also erred in upholding the costs order without adequate reasoning. Accordingly, the costs order...

Citation
[2017] ZACC 10
Parties
Applicant: Alexandria Hotz; Applicant: Masixole Mlandu; Applicant: Chumani Maxwele; Applicant: Slovo Magida; Applicant: Zola Shokane; Respondent: University of Cape Town
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 April 2017
Case Number
CCT 280/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Constitutional Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal on costs upheld; costs order against applicants set aside; each party to pay its own costs in all courts.
Judges
Nkabinde, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mbha, Mhlantla, Musi, Zondo
Legal Topics
Costs in Constitutional Litigation, Judicial Discretion, Right to Education, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Final Interdict
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Costs in Constitutional Litigation Judicial Discretion Right to Education Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Final Interdict

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexandria Hotz

Applicant

Masixole Mlandu

Applicant

Chumani Maxwele

Applicant

Slovo Magida

Applicant

Zola Shokane

Applicant

University of Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Constitutional Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court exercised its discretion judicially in awarding costs against the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to appeal the costs order of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct justified a departure from the Biowatch principle on costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that while the applicants' conduct during the protest went beyond the boundaries of peaceful and non-violent demonstration, the High Court failed to properly situate its costs order within the constitutional context. The issues raised by the applicants were of genuine constitutional import, and their opposition to the University's application was neither frivolous nor vexatious. The High Court did not exercise its discretion judicially by failing to consider the chilling effect of an adverse costs order on constitutional litigation. The Supreme Court of Appeal also erred in upholding the costs order without adequate reasoning. Accordingly, the costs order...

Court Disposition

Appeal on costs upheld; costs order against applicants set aside; each party to pay its own costs in all courts.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the application is granted.
  • The application for leave to file a replying affidavit and to tender further evidence is dismissed.