|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| July 2022 |
|
|
An application for condonation premised on the wrong rule and lacking the impugned judgment was struck off the roll.
Constitutional Court procedure – condonation – Rule 5 versus Rule 35 – requirement to attach impugned judgment – procedural compliance – striking application off the roll.
|
29 July 2022 |
|
High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain s85 application during pending magistrates' proceedings; leave to appeal refused.
Constitutional law — Access to courts (s 85(1)) — Referral procedure where constitutional issues arise during proceedings (s 175(4)) — Jurisdiction of High Court during pendency of other proceedings — Application of Chihava precedent — Nullity of proceedings lacking jurisdiction.
|
22 July 2022 |
|
Condonation denied where delay inordinate, applicant not candid and no constitutional matter established for appeal.
Condonation; extension of time; Constitutional Court jurisdiction; requirement of a constitutional matter in subordinate court decision; inordinate delay; lack of candour; matrimonial property; equality references insufficient.
|
8 July 2022 |
| June 2022 |
|
|
Constitutional Court lacks jurisdiction to stay ongoing lower-court criminal proceedings pending determination of direct-access applications.
Constitutional Court jurisdiction – review powers under s 19 – application for direct access is procedural not substantive – staying unterminated lower-court proceedings – reluctance to interfere absent constitutional matter.
|
10 June 2022 |
| May 2022 |
|
|
|
24 May 2022 |
| March 2022 |
|
|
Direct access for rescission denied: procedural non-compliance, delay and lack of lawful authority/standing.
Constitutional Court — direct access — requirements for leave — procedural compliance with court rules (r21, r29) — s 24 Constitutional Court Act (substantive power) vs procedural rules (s26) — rescission of judgments — locus standi to rescind — lawful authority to occupy gazetted land (offer letter, permit, lease).
|
22 March 2022 |
|
Application for recusal dismissed: prior preliminary rulings do not, by themselves, establish reasonable apprehension of bias.
Recusal — apprehension of bias — objective test — prior judicial rulings on preliminary issues do not disqualify judge from later hearing merits; distinction between procedural preliminary findings and merits; standing and security for costs for foreign corporate applicants.
|
9 March 2022 |