Levy v Glynos and Another (CCT29/00) [2000] ZACC 20 (21 November 2000)

Levy v Glynos and Another (CCT29/00) [2000] ZACC 20 (21 November 2000)

The Court held that the application to set aside its previous order refusing leave to appeal was both procedurally and substantively insupportable. The original order was final and unequivocal, and the grounds advanced by the applicant were neither exceptional nor compelling. The Court reaffirmed that finality in litigation is essential, not only for the respondents but also in the public interest. The applicant's submissions did not demonstrate any reason to believe the previous refusal was wrong. Accordingly, the application was dismissed summarily, and no order as to costs was made.

Citation
[2000] ZACC 20
Parties
Applicant: Levy, Delene Johanna; Respondent: Glynos, Daisy Mary-Ann; Respondent: Jammine, Azar Paul
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2000
Case Number
CCT29/00
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application to Set Aside Refusal of Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application to set aside the order refusing leave to appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Finality of Litigation, Reopening Final Orders
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Leave to Appeal Finality of Litigation Reopening Final Orders

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

Levy, Delene Johanna

Applicant

Glynos, Daisy Mary-Ann

Respondent

Jammine, Azar Paul

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application to Set Aside Refusal of Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Constitutional Court should set aside its previous order refusing leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be permitted to address the Court on the application for leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether exceptional and compelling circumstances exist to justify reopening a final order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the application to set aside its previous order refusing leave to appeal was both procedurally and substantively insupportable. The original order was final and unequivocal, and the grounds advanced by the applicant were neither exceptional nor compelling. The Court reaffirmed that finality in litigation is essential, not only for the respondents but also in the public interest. The applicant's submissions did not demonstrate any reason to believe the previous refusal was wrong. Accordingly, the application was dismissed summarily, and no order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the order refusing leave to appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to set aside the order of this Court refusing leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.