Lane and Fey NNO v Dabelstein (CCT 60/00) [2001] ZACC 14; 2001 (2) SA 1187 (CC); 2001 (4) BCLR 312 (6 March 2001)

Lane and Fey NNO v Dabelstein (CCT 60/00) [2001] ZACC 14; 2001 (2) SA 1187 (CC); 2001 (4) BCLR 312 (6 March 2001)

The Constitutional Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal. The Court found that the alleged failure by the SCA to consider certain evidence did not amount to a constitutional violation, as the Constitution does not guarantee protection against incorrect decisions, but rather ensures fairness in proceedings. The constitutional issues regarding access to courts and discrimination were not raised in the lower courts, and the applicants could have sought a declaration of unconstitutionality regarding the common law rule but failed to do so. The Court emphasized that matters involving the development of the common law should first be thoroughly canvassed in the ordinary...

Citation
[2001] ZACC 14
Parties
Applicant: Michael Lane N.O.; Applicant: Eileen Fey N.O.; Respondent: Heino Dabelstein and 12 Others
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 March 2001
Case Number
CCT 60/00
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Goldstone, Kriegler, Chaskalson, Ackermann, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Sachs, Yacoob, Madlanga, Somyalo
Legal Topics
Right of Access to Courts, Unfair Discrimination, Attachment to Found Jurisdiction, Development of Common Law
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Right of Access to Courts Unfair Discrimination Attachment to Found Jurisdiction Development of Common Law

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Lane N.O.

Applicant

Eileen Fey N.O.

Applicant

Heino Dabelstein and 12 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal's order violated the applicants' right of access to courts under section 34 of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the requirement that peregrini must attach assets to found jurisdiction constitutes unfair discrimination under section 9 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal failed to consider crucial evidence, thereby violating the applicants' right to a fair trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal. The Court found that the alleged failure by the SCA to consider certain evidence did not amount to a constitutional violation, as the Constitution does not guarantee protection against incorrect decisions, but rather ensures fairness in proceedings. The constitutional issues regarding access to courts and discrimination were not raised in the lower courts, and the applicants could have sought a declaration of unconstitutionality regarding the common law rule but failed to do so. The Court emphasized that matters involving the development of the common law should first be thoroughly canvassed in the ordinary...

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.