Tjiroze v Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board (CCT271/19) [2020] ZACC 18; 2021 (1) BCLR 59 (CC) (21 July 2020)

Tjiroze v Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board (CCT271/19) [2020] ZACC 18; 2021 (1) BCLR 59 (CC) (21 July 2020)

The Constitutional Court refused leave to appeal, finding that the application did not raise a constitutional issue and was moot due to the substitution of the respondent by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority. The applicant's allegations of judicial conflict were unsubstantiated and did not engage the Court's jurisdiction. The Court held that ex post facto recusal and nullification of judgments are not competent remedies. The applicant's litigation was found to be vexatious, abusive, and based on technicalities without merit. The Court ordered the applicant to pay the second respondent's costs on an attorney and client scale as a mark of its displeasure at the abuse of process and...

Citation
[2020] ZACC 18
Parties
Applicant: Hitjevi Obafemi Tjiroze; Respondent: Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board; Respondent: Financial Sector Conduct Authority; Respondent: Marcus Lekgaloa Senyatsi
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 July 2020
Case Number
CCT 271/19
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Direct Appeal From the High Court; Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused. The applicant is ordered to pay the second respondent's costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Mogoeng, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Theron, Tshiqi, Victor
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Mootness, Recusal of Judge, Costs Punitive Scale, Section 34 Fair Hearing
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Leave to Appeal Mootness Recusal of Judge Costs Punitive Scale Section 34 Fair Hearing

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hitjevi Obafemi Tjiroze

Applicant

Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board

Respondent

Financial Sector Conduct Authority

Respondent

Marcus Lekgaloa Senyatsi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Direct Appeal From the High Court; Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal raises a constitutional issue justifying the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's right to a fair hearing under section 34 of the Constitution was infringed by alleged judicial conflict of interest.
  3. 3 Whether the application is moot due to the substitution of the respondent by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court refused leave to appeal, finding that the application did not raise a constitutional issue and was moot due to the substitution of the respondent by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority. The applicant's allegations of judicial conflict were unsubstantiated and did not engage the Court's jurisdiction. The Court held that ex post facto recusal and nullification of judgments are not competent remedies. The applicant's litigation was found to be vexatious, abusive, and based on technicalities without merit. The Court ordered the applicant to pay the second respondent's costs on an attorney and client scale as a mark of its displeasure at the abuse of process and...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused. The applicant is ordered to pay the second respondent's costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicant must pay the second respondent's costs on an attorney and client scale.