S v Western Areas Ltd and Others (CCT 4/04) [2004] ZACC 2; 2004 (8) BCLR 819 (CC); 2004 (1) SACR 567 (CC) (5 April 2004)
- Citation
- [2004] ZACC 2
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Constitutional Court
- Panel
- Chaskalson, Madala, Mokgoro, Moseneke, O'Regan, Sachs, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob
- Case number
- CCT 4/04
More details
- Court
- Constitutional Court
- Panel
- Chaskalson, Madala, Mokgoro, Moseneke, O'Regan, Sachs, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob
- Case number
- CCT 4/04
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Constitutional Court held that the application for conditional leave to appeal was misconceived and unnecessary. The rules of the Court allow any litigant aggrieved by a decision of any court, including the Supreme Court of Appeal, to apply for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court within 15 days of the relevant order. There is no need for a conditional application, as the rules provide a clear and sufficient procedure for such appeals. Accordingly, the application for conditional leave to appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Application for conditional leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Western Areas Limited
ApplicantRoger Brett Kebble
ApplicantRoger Ainsley Ralph Kebble
ApplicantThe State
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Conditional Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants are entitled to apply for conditional leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court pending the outcome of their application to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- 02
Whether the rules of the Constitutional Court permit a conditional application for leave to appeal.
- 03
Whether the application for conditional leave to appeal is necessary or misconceived.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants contend that they require conditional leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court in case the Supreme Court of Appeal refuses to consider their appeal on the merits. They argue that without such conditional leave, they may be left without recourse to constitutional review if the SCA declines jurisdiction.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintains that the application for conditional leave to appeal is unnecessary and misconceived, as the rules of the Constitutional Court already provide a mechanism for direct appeal within 15 days of any adverse decision, including a refusal by the SCA to consider the merits.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rules 19(1) and (2) of the Constitutional Court Rules
A litigant aggrieved by a decision of any court, including the Supreme Court of Appeal, may appeal directly to the Constitutional Court within 15 days of the order against which the appeal is sought.
- 02
Rules 19(1) and (2) of the Constitutional Court Rules
Conditional applications for leave to appeal are not contemplated by the rules and are therefore not competent.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Constitutional Court held that the application for conditional leave to appeal was misconceived and unnecessary. The rules of the Court allow any litigant aggrieved by a decision of any court, including the Supreme Court of Appeal, to apply for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court within 15 days of the relevant order. There is no need for a conditional application, as the rules provide a clear and sufficient procedure for such appeals. Accordingly, the application for conditional leave to appeal was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The applicants may apply for leave to appeal within 15 days of the refusal of an application for leave to appeal to the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- It is competent for an application for leave to appeal to be brought within 15 days of a decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal refusing to consider the appeal on its merits.
Court disposition
Application for conditional leave to appeal dismissed.
- The application is dismissed.
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 4/04
WESTERN AREAS LIMITED First Applicant ROGER BRETT KEBBLE Second ApplicantROGER AINSLEY RALPH KEBBLE Third ApplicantversusTHE STATE RespondentDecided on : 5 April 2004
JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
[1] The applicants are charged with various counts of fraud in the High Court. They apply for “conditional” leave to appeal to this Court against an order dismissing their objection to the indictment in terms of section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 . They have also applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (the SCA) and fear that their appeal may not be considered on the merits. [1] The application for leave to appeal to this Court is not conditional upon their application to the SCA being refused but on a refusal by the SCA to consider the appeal on its merits.
[2] The application is misconceived and unnecessary. Rules 19(1) and (2) of the rules of this Court provide:
“(1) The procedure set out in this rule shall be followed in an application for leave to appeal to the Court where a decision on a constitutional matter, other than an order of constitutional invalidity under section 172(2)(a) of the Constitution, has been given by any court including the Supreme Court of Appeal, and irrespective of whether the President has refused leave or special leave to appeal. (2) A litigant who is aggrieved by the decision of a court and who wishes to appeal against it directly to the Court on a constitutional matter shall, within 15 days of the order against which the appeal is sought to be brought and after giving notice to the other party or parties concerned, lodge with the Registrar an application for leave to appeal: Provided that where the President has refused leave to appeal the period prescribed in this rule shall run from the date of the order refusing leave.”
[3] These rules allow a litigant aggrieved by a decision of any court, including the SCA to appeal against that decision to this Court within 15 days of the order against which the appeal is directed. It is therefore competent for an application for leave to appeal to be brought within 15 days of the date of a decision by the SCA refusing to consider the appeal on its merits. The applicants can also apply for leave to appeal within 15 days of the refusal of an application for leave to appeal to the President of the SCA. The application for “conditional” leave to appeal must be refused.
Order
[4] The application is dismissed.
Chaskalson CJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Moseneke J, O’Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J.
[1] It may be that they anticipate that the SCA will not exercise jurisdiction to hear the appeal following its decision in the cases of S v Basson [2003] 3 All SA 51 (SCA) and R v Adams 1959 (3) SA 753 (A).
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.