Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Chonco and Others (CCT42/09) [2010] ZACC 9; 2010 (7) BCLR 629 (CC) (8 April 2010)

Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Chonco and Others (CCT42/09) [2010] ZACC 9; 2010 (7) BCLR 629 (CC) (8 April 2010)

The Constitutional Court held that it has the power and duty to interpret and, if necessary, vary its previous orders, regardless of changes in its composition. The omission of explicit reference to the respondents' costs in the High Court in the original order created an ambiguity, which the Court is empowered to remedy under Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules. The Court found that the original judgment's reasoning—that the respondents should not be out of pocket for seeking legal recourse—necessarily covered costs in all three courts. The order is therefore varied to make explicit that the Minister must pay the respondents' costs incurred in the High Court, as well as the costs of the appeal...

Citation
[2010] ZACC 9
Parties
Applicant: Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Mqabukeni Chonco and 383 Others
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 April 2010
Case Number
CCT42/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Vary Costs Order
Outcome
Order varied to clarify that the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development must pay the respondents' costs incurred in the High Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal, and the Constitutional Court.
Judges
Ngcobo, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Variation of Court Orders, Costs Award, Court Composition, Constitutional Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Variation of Court Orders Costs Award Court Composition Constitutional Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development

Applicant

Mqabukeni Chonco and 383 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Vary Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Constitutional Court, as presently constituted, have the power to vary its previous costs order?
  2. 2 Does the original costs order cover the respondents' costs in the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal, or only in the Constitutional Court?
  3. 3 Is the omission of explicit reference to High Court costs in the original order an ambiguity or error that can be remedied under Rule 42?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that it has the power and duty to interpret and, if necessary, vary its previous orders, regardless of changes in its composition. The omission of explicit reference to the respondents' costs in the High Court in the original order created an ambiguity, which the Court is empowered to remedy under Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules. The Court found that the original judgment's reasoning—that the respondents should not be out of pocket for seeking legal recourse—necessarily covered costs in all three courts. The order is therefore varied to make explicit that the Minister must pay the respondents' costs incurred in the High Court, as well as the costs of the appeal...

Court Disposition

Order varied to clarify that the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development must pay the respondents' costs incurred in the High Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal, and the Constitutional Court.

Orders

  • The order in Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Chonco and Others (CCT 42/09) [2009] ZACC 25 is replaced with the following:
  • 1. The application for leave to appeal is granted.