Lekolwane and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (CCT 47/05) [2008] ZACC 18; 2009 (2) BCLR 158 (CC) (3 October 2008)

Lekolwane and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (CCT 47/05) [2008] ZACC 18; 2009 (2) BCLR 158 (CC) (3 October 2008)

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants failed to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for their delay in bringing the reinstatement application. The affidavit submitted did not supplement the reasons previously given for postponement, and no convincing explanation was provided for the nearly two-year delay. The applicants' account was incomplete and unsatisfactory, and the interests of justice did not require the application to be re-enrolled. Consequently, the application for reinstatement was refused.

Citation
[2008] ZACC 18
Parties
Applicant: Phineas Lekolwane; Applicant: Elizabeth Lekolwane; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 October 2008
Case Number
CCT 47/05
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Reinstatement of Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for reinstatement of leave to appeal refused.
Judges
Langa, Moseneke, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Interests of Justice, Condonation, Postponement, Witness Protection Regulations
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Interests of Justice Condonation Postponement Witness Protection Regulations

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 1 Party arguments 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 Reinstatement of Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be reinstated on the roll.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have shown good cause and provided a full explanation for their delay and previous conduct.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require the re-enrolment of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants failed to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for their delay in bringing the reinstatement application. The affidavit submitted did not supplement the reasons previously given for postponement, and no convincing explanation was provided for the nearly two-year delay. The applicants' account was incomplete and unsatisfactory, and the interests of justice did not require the application to be re-enrolled. Consequently, the application for reinstatement was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for reinstatement of leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The application is refused.
  • There is no order as to costs.