Mphahlele v First National Bank of South Africa Ltd (CCT23/98) [1999] ZACC 1; 1999 (2) SA 667; 1999 (3) BCLR 253 (1 March 1999)

Mphahlele v First National Bank of South Africa Ltd (CCT23/98) [1999] ZACC 1; 1999 (2) SA 667; 1999 (3) BCLR 253 (1 March 1999)

The Constitutional Court held that while the judiciary is bound by the rule of law and should scrutinise pre-constitutional practices, there is no constitutional requirement that reasons be furnished for every judicial decision, particularly for refusals of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The refusal is final and does not prejudice the litigant's ability to pursue further remedies, as reasons for the original adverse decision are already provided by the lower court. The practice of not providing reasons for refusal of leave to appeal is consistent with international standards and serves the public interest by preventing the clogging of appellate dockets with unmeritorious...

Citation
[1999] ZACC 1
Parties
Applicant: Vincent Maredi Mphahlele; Respondent: First National Bank of South Africa Ltd
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 March 1999
Case Number
CCT23/98
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Refusal by Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Goldstone, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Reagan, Sachs, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Judicial Accountability, Right to Reasons, Access to Courts, Rule of Law, Leave to Appeal Procedure
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Judicial Accountability Right to Reasons Access to Courts Rule of Law Leave to Appeal Procedure

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent Maredi Mphahlele

Applicant

First National Bank of South Africa Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Refusal by Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Constitution obliges judges to furnish reasons for orders refusing leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal's practice of not providing reasons for refusal of leave to appeal breaches constitutional rights.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to reasons under the right to information and equality clauses.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that while the judiciary is bound by the rule of law and should scrutinise pre-constitutional practices, there is no constitutional requirement that reasons be furnished for every judicial decision, particularly for refusals of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The refusal is final and does not prejudice the litigant's ability to pursue further remedies, as reasons for the original adverse decision are already provided by the lower court. The practice of not providing reasons for refusal of leave to appeal is consistent with international standards and serves the public interest by preventing the clogging of appellate dockets with unmeritorious...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.