Veerasamy v Engen Refinery and Another (CCT16/00) [2000] ZACC 7; 2000 (3) SA 337 (CC); (2000) 21 ILJ 1606 (CC) (31 May 2000)

Veerasamy v Engen Refinery and Another (CCT16/00) [2000] ZACC 7; 2000 (3) SA 337 (CC); (2000) 21 ILJ 1606 (CC) (31 May 2000)

The Constitutional Court refused direct access, holding that even if the tape recording were excluded, the remaining evidence before the CCMA established that the applicant's dismissal was not unfair. The Court found that, regardless of the merits of the constitutional challenge regarding privacy, there was no basis to order reinstatement or a rehearing. Therefore, it was not in the interests of justice to grant direct access, and the application was dismissed.

Citation
[2000] ZACC 7
Parties
Applicant: P Veerasamy; Respondent: Engen Refinery; Respondent: A P Shangase
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2000
Case Number
CCT16/00
Procedural Posture
Direct Access Application / Application for Direct Access to Constitutional Court
Outcome
Application for direct access to the Constitutional Court refused.
Judges
O'Regan, Chaskalson, Langa, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Sachs, Yacoob, Cameron
Legal Topics
Right to Privacy, Admissibility of Evidence, Unfair Dismissal, Direct Access
Constitutional Law Labour Law Right to Privacy Admissibility of Evidence Unfair Dismissal Direct Access

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P Veerasamy

Applicant

Engen Refinery

Respondent

A P Shangase

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Direct Access Application / Application for Direct Access to Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the admission of a privately-made tape recording by the CCMA infringed the applicant's constitutional right to privacy.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged infringement justified setting aside the CCMA's decision and ordering reinstatement or rehearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court refused direct access, holding that even if the tape recording were excluded, the remaining evidence before the CCMA established that the applicant's dismissal was not unfair. The Court found that, regardless of the merits of the constitutional challenge regarding privacy, there was no basis to order reinstatement or a rehearing. Therefore, it was not in the interests of justice to grant direct access, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for direct access to the Constitutional Court refused.

Orders

  • Direct access to the Constitutional Court is refused.