Lekolwane and Another v Minister of Justice (CCT47/05) [2006] ZACC 19; 2007 (3) BCLR 280 (CC) (23 November 2006)

Lekolwane and Another v Minister of Justice (CCT47/05) [2006] ZACC 19; 2007 (3) BCLR 280 (CC) (23 November 2006)

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants had failed to show good cause for condonation and postponement. Despite being given more than sufficient time and a final postponement, the applicants and their legal representatives did not treat the matter with urgency and failed to prepare adequately. The Court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] ZACC 19
Parties
Applicant: Phineas Lekolwane; Applicant: Elizabeth Lekolwane; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 November 2006
Case Number
CCT 47/05
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Postponement; Application for Leave to Appeal Struck Off Roll
Outcome
Application for condonation and postponement dismissed; application for leave to appeal struck off the roll; no order as to costs.
Judges
Langa, Moseneke, Kondile, Madala, Mokgoro, Nkabinde, O'Regan, Sachs, Van der Westhuizen, Van Heerden, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Postponement, Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Unfair Discrimination, Rights of Children
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Postponement Condonation Leave to Appeal Unfair Discrimination Rights of Children

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phineas Lekolwane

Applicant

Elizabeth Lekolwane

Applicant

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Postponement; Application for Leave to Appeal Struck Off Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for condonation and postponement of the hearing.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be entertained despite procedural non-compliance.
  3. 3 Whether regulation 22(1) of the Witness Protection Act constitutes unfair discrimination and infringes constitutional rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants had failed to show good cause for condonation and postponement. Despite being given more than sufficient time and a final postponement, the applicants and their legal representatives did not treat the matter with urgency and failed to prepare adequately. The Court found that granting another postponement would constitute an abuse of process and would not be in the interests of justice. The application for condonation and postponement was dismissed, and as counsel for the applicants was unable to proceed, the application for leave to appeal was struck off the roll. The Court emphasized that postponement is a discretionary indulgence, not a...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and postponement dismissed; application for leave to appeal struck off the roll; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation and postponement of the hearing is dismissed.
  • The application for leave to appeal the decision of the full bench of the High Court Pretoria made on 8 November 2004 is struck off the roll.