Mamadi and Another v Premier of Limpopo Province and Others (CCT 176/21) [2022] ZACC 26; 2023 (6) BCLR 733 (CC); 2024 (1) SA 1 (CC) (6 July 2022)

Mamadi and Another v Premier of Limpopo Province and Others (CCT 176/21) [2022] ZACC 26; 2023 (6) BCLR 733 (CC); 2024 (1) SA 1 (CC) (6 July 2022)

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the review application on the basis that disputes of fact were reasonably foreseeable and thus required the matter to be brought by way of action rather than motion. Rule 53 is designed to facilitate access to the record and reasons for administrative decisions, which is essential for vindicating constitutional rights to just administrative action and access to courts. Litigants are entitled to bring review proceedings under rule 53 even where disputes of fact are anticipated, and courts do not have a discretion under rule 6(5)(g) to dismiss such applications solely on that basis. Where genuine and far-reaching disputes...

Citation
[2022] ZACC 26
Parties
Applicant: Madidimalo Kislon Mamadi; Applicant: Babirwa Baga Mamadi Royal Family; Respondent: Premier of Limpopo Province; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs; Respondent: Limpopo House of Traditional Leaders; Respondent: Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims; Respondent: Aborekwe Thomas Mamadi; Respondent: Babirwa Ba Mamadi Royal Council
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 July 2022
Case Number
CCT 176/21
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court; Application for Leave to Appeal; Constitutional Court Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; High Court order set aside; matter remitted for trial before a different judge; costs awarded to applicants in leave to appeal applications and in the Constitutional Court.
Judges
Zondo, Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Mlambo, Theron, Tshiqi, Unterhalter
Legal Topics
Review Proceedings, Disputes of Fact, Rule 53, Rule 6 5 G, Just Administrative Action, Access to Courts
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Review Proceedings Disputes of Fact Rule 53 Rule 6 5 G Just Administrative Action +1 more

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madidimalo Kislon Mamadi

Applicant

Babirwa Baga Mamadi Royal Family

Applicant

Premier of Limpopo Province

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Limpopo House of Traditional Leaders

Respondent

Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims

Respondent

Aborekwe Thomas Mamadi

Respondent

Babirwa Ba Mamadi Royal Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court; Application for Leave to Appeal; Constitutional Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court may dismiss a review application brought under rule 53 due to reasonably foreseeable disputes of fact irresoluble on the papers.
  2. 2 How rule 6(5)(g) interacts with rule 53 in review proceedings where disputes of fact arise.
  3. 3 Whether litigants must bring review proceedings by way of action rather than motion when disputes of fact are anticipated.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the review application on the basis that disputes of fact were reasonably foreseeable and thus required the matter to be brought by way of action rather than motion. Rule 53 is designed to facilitate access to the record and reasons for administrative decisions, which is essential for vindicating constitutional rights to just administrative action and access to courts. Litigants are entitled to bring review proceedings under rule 53 even where disputes of fact are anticipated, and courts do not have a discretion under rule 6(5)(g) to dismiss such applications solely on that basis. Where genuine and far-reaching disputes...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; High Court order set aside; matter remitted for trial before a different judge; costs awarded to applicants in leave to appeal applications and in the Constitutional Court.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld and the order of the High Court is set aside.