Mercer and Another (CCT31/02), Ex parte [2002] ZACC 23; 2003 (1) SA 203 (CC) (28 October 2002)
- Citation
- [2002] ZACC 23
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Constitutional Court
- Panel
- Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob
- Case number
- CCT31/02
More details
- Court
- Constitutional Court
- Panel
- Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob
- Case number
- CCT31/02
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
02
Material facts
Parties
Christopher Lance Mercer
ApplicantBeverley Pervan
ApplicantNational Prosecuting Authority of South Africa
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Constitutional Application / Application for Direct Access to Constitutional Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Problem Animal Control Ordinance, 1957 breaches the right to equality under section 9 of the Constitution.
- 02
Whether the Ordinance infringes environmental rights under section 24 of the Constitution.
- 03
Whether it is appropriate for the Constitutional Court to hear the matter before the High Court has adjudicated the appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that the Problem Animal Control Ordinance, 1957 is unconstitutional as it violates their right to equality under section 9 and environmental rights under section 24 of the Constitution. They contended that repeated denial of permits to harbour Northern Cape lynx was unjustified and that the Ordinance discriminates against them and fails to protect environmental interests. They sought direct access to the Constitutional Court due to delays in the High Court proceedings.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the applicants should exhaust remedies in the High Court before approaching the Constitutional Court. It was argued that the appeal and constitutional challenge should be heard in the ordinary course and that direct access was premature and unjustified.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 167(6)(a) of the Constitution
Direct access to the Constitutional Court is only granted in exceptional circumstances and generally not before lower courts have considered the matter.
- 02
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
The right to equality and environmental rights are protected under sections 9 and 24 of the Constitution, but constitutional challenges should follow proper procedural channels.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- The delay in the High Court hearing does not justify bypassing the ordinary appellate process.
- Constitutional challenges should generally be considered by lower courts before reaching the Constitutional Court.
Court disposition
Application for direct access to the Constitutional Court refused.
- The application is refused.
Source and reliance status
Constitutional Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Constitutional Court
Judgment
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 31/02EX PARTE:
CHRISTOPHER LANCE MERCER First Applicant
BEVERLEY PERVAN Second Applicant
IN RE: THE PROBLEM ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE 26 OF 1957
AndTHE NATIONAL PROSECUTING
AUTHORITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
Decided on : 28 October 2002
JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
[1] The applicants were convicted in the Kuruman Magistrates’ Court in September 2001 of contravening certain provisions of the Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance, 1974 prohibiting the harbouring of certain animals without a permit. The applicants were on several occasions denied permits to harbour the three Northern Cape lynx they held, on the basis that these animals are earmarked as potential problem animals to farmers in the region in terms of the Problem Animal Control Ordinance, 1957 (the Ordinance). [1]
[2] The applicants launched proceedings in the Northern Cape High Court on two grounds. They wished to appeal against their convictions and sentences in the Magistrates’ Court and furthermore sought to challenge the constitutionality of the Ordinance in its entirety. After being set down for hearing on 9 September 2002 in the High Court, the matter was postponed to 3 March 2003. The applicants now apply directly to this Court for it to hear the matter without awaiting the outcome of the appeal in the High Court.
[3] The matter raises a number of constitutional issues, including challenges to the constitutionality of the Ordinance on the grounds that it breaches the right to equality contained in section 9 of the Constitution as well as environmental rights contained in section 24. In our view, notwithstanding the delay involved in the hearing of the appeal, it would be premature for this Court to hear the matter before the High Court deals with it.
[4] Accordingly, the application is refused.
Chaskalson CJ, Langa DCJ, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O’Regan J, Sachs J and Yacoob J.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.