Saane v Hulme NO and Another (CCT33/00) [2000] ZACC 13; 2000 (4) SA 788 (7 September 2000)

Saane v Hulme NO and Another (CCT33/00) [2000] ZACC 13; 2000 (4) SA 788 (7 September 2000)

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's appeal was already pending before the High Court, which is the appropriate forum to hear appeals involving both factual and legal issues. The delay in setting down the appeal was due to the preparation of a lengthy trial record, and the record had now been lodged with the High Court. The applicant, who was on bail, would be able to raise all issues before the High Court. There were no exceptional circumstances justifying direct access to the Constitutional Court, and the interests of justice did not require bypassing the ordinary appellate process.

Citation
[2000] ZACC 13
Parties
Appellant: Sunnyboy Edward Saane; Respondent: Susan R. Hulme NO; Respondent: Minister of Justice
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 September 2000
Case Number
CCT33/00
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Directly to the Constitutional Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court refused.
Judges
Sachs, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Kriegler, Goldstone, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Yacoob, Madlanga
Legal Topics
Right to Speedy Trial, Direct Access to Constitutional Court, Fair Trial Procedure
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Right to Speedy Trial Direct Access to Constitutional Court Fair Trial 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunnyboy Edward Saane

Appellant

Susan R. Hulme NO

Respondent

Minister of Justice

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Directly to the Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court against his conviction and sentence.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in hearing the appeal in the High Court constitutes a denial of the right to a speedy trial.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court is the appropriate forum to hear the appeal involving factual and legal issues.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's appeal was already pending before the High Court, which is the appropriate forum to hear appeals involving both factual and legal issues. The delay in setting down the appeal was due to the preparation of a lengthy trial record, and the record had now been lodged with the High Court. The applicant, who was on bail, would be able to raise all issues before the High Court. There were no exceptional circumstances justifying direct access to the Constitutional Court, and the interests of justice did not require bypassing the ordinary appellate process.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court refused.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court is refused.