S v S and Another (CCT147/18) [2019] ZACC 22; 2019 (8) BCLR 989 (CC); 2019 (6) SA 1 (CC) (27 June 2019)

S v S and Another (CCT147/18) [2019] ZACC 22; 2019 (8) BCLR 989 (CC); 2019 (6) SA 1 (CC) (27 June 2019)

Section 16(3) of the Superior Courts Act, which prohibits appeals against rule 43 orders, does not infringe the constitutional rights of litigants. The prohibition is rationally connected to the legitimate purpose of providing speedy and inexpensive interim relief in matrimonial matters, primarily benefiting women and children. Allowing appeals would result in significant delays and increased costs, undermining the best interests of the child and the effectiveness of rule 43. Both parties in rule 43 proceedings are equally barred from appealing, satisfying equality before the law. Access to court is not denied, as litigants may seek variation of orders under rule 43(6) in cases of changed...

Citation
[2019] ZACC 22
Parties
Applicant: S; Respondent: S; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services; Amicus Curiae: Centre for Child Law
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2019
Case Number
CCT 147/18
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Constitutional Court Appeal From High Court, Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Outcome
Leave to appeal is granted; the appeal is dismissed; the applicant must pay the costs of the first respondent.
Judges
Mogoeng, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Ledwaba, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nicholls, Theron
Legal Topics
Interim Maintenance, Best Interests of the Child, Rule 43 Procedure, Appealability of Interlocutory Orders, Equality Before the Law, Access to Court
Family and Children Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Interim Maintenance Best Interests of the Child Rule 43 Procedure Appealability of Interlocutory Orders Equality Before the Law +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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Applicant

S

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Respondent

Centre for Child Law

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Constitutional Court Appeal From High Court, Gauteng Division, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 16(3) of the Superior Courts Act, which prohibits appeals against rule 43 orders, infringe constitutional rights?
  2. 2 Does the prohibition on appeals violate the best interests of the child under section 28(2) of the Constitution?
  3. 3 Does section 16(3) infringe the right to equality before the law under section 9?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 16(3) of the Superior Courts Act, which prohibits appeals against rule 43 orders, does not infringe the constitutional rights of litigants. The prohibition is rationally connected to the legitimate purpose of providing speedy and inexpensive interim relief in matrimonial matters, primarily benefiting women and children. Allowing appeals would result in significant delays and increased costs, undermining the best interests of the child and the effectiveness of rule 43. Both parties in rule 43 proceedings are equally barred from appealing, satisfying equality before the law. Access to court is not denied, as litigants may seek variation of orders under rule 43(6) in cases of changed...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is granted; the appeal is dismissed; the applicant must pay the costs of the first respondent.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is dismissed.