Mercer and Another (CCT31/02), Ex parte [2002] ZACC 23; 2003 (1) SA 203 (CC) (28 October 2002)

Mercer and Another (CCT31/02), Ex parte [2002] ZACC 23; 2003 (1) SA 203 (CC) (28 October 2002)

The Constitutional Court held that, despite the constitutional issues raised regarding equality and environmental rights, it would be premature to hear the matter before the High Court has adjudicated the appeal and constitutional challenge. The applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting direct access. The application for direct access was therefore refused.

Citation
[2002] ZACC 23
Parties
Applicant: Christopher Lance Mercer; Applicant: Beverley Pervan; Respondent: National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2002
Case Number
CCT31/02
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Application / Application for Direct Access to Constitutional Court
Outcome
Application for direct access to the Constitutional Court refused.
Judges
Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Right to Equality, Environmental Rights, Direct Access, Constitutionality of Legislation
Constitutional Law Environmental Law Right to Equality Environmental Rights Direct Access Constitutionality of Legislation

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Lance Mercer

Applicant

Beverley Pervan

Applicant

National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Application / Application for Direct Access to Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Problem Animal Control Ordinance, 1957 breaches the right to equality under section 9 of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the Ordinance infringes environmental rights under section 24 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether it is appropriate for the Constitutional Court to hear the matter before the High Court has adjudicated the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that, despite the constitutional issues raised regarding equality and environmental rights, it would be premature to hear the matter before the High Court has adjudicated the appeal and constitutional challenge. The applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting direct access. The application for direct access was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application for direct access to the Constitutional Court refused.

Orders

  • The application is refused.