About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Constitutional Court
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Constitutional Court
>>
2000
>>
[2000] ZACC 20
|
|
Levy v Glynos and Another (CCT29/00) [2000] ZACC 20 (21 November 2000)
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case CCT
29/00
LEVY, DELENE JOHANNA APPLICANT
versus
GLYNOS, DAISY MARY-ANN 1
ST
RESPONDENT
JAMMINE, AZAR PAUL 2
ND
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
[1]
The applicant has lodged a
notice of motion asking the Court to set aside an order it issued on 15 August
2000 whereby the applicant
was refused leave to appeal to this Court against a
judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Appeal. She also asks that she be
permitted to address the Court on the application for leave to appeal. Neither
request can be granted. The application is both procedurally
and substantively
insupportable.
[2]
The application for leave to
appeal was considered by the full Court in terms of rule 18(1)(b) of the
Constitutional Court Rules,
i.e. summarily without hearing oral or written
argument other than that contained in the application itself. It was dismissed
on
its merits – finally, once and for all. The previous order was quite
unequivocal. It read as follows:
“The Constitutional Court, having considered the application for leave to
appeal and the other affidavits lodged in this matter,
and being of the opinion
that there is no reasonable prospect that an appeal will succeed, dealt with the
application in terms of
rule 18(10), and made the following
order:
The application for leave to appeal is refused. No order is made as to
costs.”
In principle such a final and
definitive order of this Court will be reopened only in exceptional
circumstances and for compelling
reasons. Not only the applicant has an
interest in the matters sought to be reopened -- the respondents are entitled to
get on with
their lives and, more importantly, finality in litigation is
important in the public interest.
[3]
The grounds advanced by the
applicant in support of the present application, set out in the founding
affidavit and supplemented in
subsequent letters to the Court, are neither
exceptional nor compelling. However sincerely the applicant may believe in the
justness
of her cause, there is no reason to believe that the previous refusal
of leave to appeal was wrong. On the contrary, the Court,
once again using the
procedure permitted by rule 18(10), has concluded that the points put up by the
applicant are without merit.
It has also decided that it is in the interests of
all concerned, not least the applicant, who runs the risk of further adverse
costs awards, that the current application be refused summarily.
Order
[4]
The application to set aside
the order of this Court refusing leave to appeal is dismissed. There is no
order as to costs.