Magidiwana and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 100/13) [2013] ZACC 27; 2013 (11) BCLR 1251 (CC) (19 August 2013)

Magidiwana and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 100/13) [2013] ZACC 27; 2013 (11) BCLR 1251 (CC) (19 August 2013)

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants were not entitled to legal representation at state expense in the proceedings before the Marikana Commission of Inquiry. The relevant constitutional provisions for state-funded legal representation apply only to children in civil proceedings, detained persons, and accused in criminal trials, none of which describe the applicants' situation. The allocation of public resources for legal aid is an executive function, and absent evidence of unlawfulness, fraud, or corruption, the courts should not interfere. The applicants' reliance on sections 34 and 9 of the Constitution and general fairness did not warrant intervention. The High Court's...

Citation
[2013] ZACC 27
Parties
Applicant: Mzoxolo Magidiwana and Other Injured and Arrested Persons; Applicant: Families of Deceased Persons; Applicant: Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union; Applicant: Ledingoane Family; Respondent: President of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Legal Aid South Africa; Respondent: Marikana Commission of Inquiry; Respondent: National Commissioner of Police; Respondent: London Mining Company PLC; Respondent: SA Human Rights Commission; Amicus Curiae: Black Lawyers Association
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2013
Case Number
CCT 100/13
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Urgent Interim Relief in the High Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo
Legal Topics
Legal Aid at State Expense, Commission of Inquiry, Access to Courts, Interim Relief, Equality Before Law
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Legal Aid at State Expense Commission of Inquiry Access to Courts Interim Relief Equality Before 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mzoxolo Magidiwana and Other Injured and Arrested Persons

Applicant

Families of Deceased Persons

Applicant

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union

Applicant

Ledingoane Family

Applicant

President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Legal Aid South Africa

Respondent

Marikana Commission of Inquiry

Respondent

National Commissioner of Police

Respondent

London Mining Company PLC

Respondent

SA Human Rights Commission

Respondent

Black Lawyers Association

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Urgent Interim Relief in the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to legal representation at state expense in proceedings before the Marikana Commission of Inquiry.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal by the respondents to provide legal aid justifies the granting of interim relief.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's dismissal of the urgent application for interim relief should be overturned on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants were not entitled to legal representation at state expense in the proceedings before the Marikana Commission of Inquiry. The relevant constitutional provisions for state-funded legal representation apply only to children in civil proceedings, detained persons, and accused in criminal trials, none of which describe the applicants' situation. The allocation of public resources for legal aid is an executive function, and absent evidence of unlawfulness, fraud, or corruption, the courts should not interfere. The applicants' reliance on sections 34 and 9 of the Constitution and general fairness did not warrant intervention. The High Court's...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • In terms of rule 19(6)(b) the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.