Zweni v Minister of Law and Order of the Republic of South Africa (310/91) [1992] ZASCA 197; [1993] 1 All SA 365 (A); 1993 (1) SA 523 (A) (20 November 1992)

Zweni v Minister of Law and Order of the Republic of South Africa (310/91) [1992] ZASCA 197; [1993] 1 All SA 365 (A); 1993 (1) SA 523 (A) (20 November 1992)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the decision of Goldstein J refusing disclosure of the police docket was not a 'judgment or order' within the meaning of section 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act. The Court reasoned that the decision lacked finality, was not definitive of the parties' rights, and did not dispose of any substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings. The Court clarified that, following the amendment of section 20, only decisions meeting these attributes are appealable, and simple interlocutory orders or rulings are not. The legislative intent was to reduce the number of appeals and align the appealability of decisions from provincial divisions with...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 197
Parties
Applicant: Z D Zweni; Respondent: Minister of Law and Order of the Republic of South Africa
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 1992
Case Number
310/91
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From a Provincial Division Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused; the application is dismissed with costs, including costs for two counsel.
Judges
Hoexter, Hefer, F H Grosskopf, Nienaber, Harms
Legal Topics
Appealable Judgment or Order, Interlocutory Orders, Leave to Appeal, Finality of Decisions
Civil Procedure Appealable Judgment or Order Interlocutory Orders Leave to Appeal Finality of Decisions

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 3 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Z D Zweni

Applicant

Minister of Law and Order of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From a Provincial Division Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision of Goldstein J refusing disclosure of a police docket is an appealable 'judgment or order' under section 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in respect of a decision characterized as a ruling rather than a judgment or order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the decision of Goldstein J refusing disclosure of the police docket was not a 'judgment or order' within the meaning of section 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act. The Court reasoned that the decision lacked finality, was not definitive of the parties' rights, and did not dispose of any substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings. The Court clarified that, following the amendment of section 20, only decisions meeting these attributes are appealable, and simple interlocutory orders or rulings are not. The legislative intent was to reduce the number of appeals and align the appealability of decisions from provincial divisions with...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused; the application is dismissed with costs, including costs for two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.