Wallach v Selvan and Others (CCT15/01) [2001] ZACC 24; 2000 (11) BCLR 1195 (CC) (21 August 2001)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Constitutional Court
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Constitutional Court
>>
2001
>>
[2001] ZACC 24
|

|

Wallach v Selvan and Others (CCT15/01) [2001] ZACC 24; 2000 (11) BCLR 1195 (CC) (21 August 2001)

Links to summary

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case CCT 15/01
PETER SIEGWART WALLACH                                                     Applicant
In re:
PETER SIEGWART
WALLACH                                                     Applicant
versus
RONALD LESTER SELVAN                                                         Â
First
Respondent
THE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(WITWATERSRAND DIVISION)                                       Second
Respondent
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT                                                                            Â
Third
Respondent
JUDGMENT
KRIEGLER J:
[1]
The
applicant asks for direct access to this Court and in the alternative for
directions as to the procedure he should follow in
raising what he alleges is a
constitutional challenge to legal proceedings he brought, first, in the
Witwatersrand High Court and
then in the Supreme Court of Appeal.  On 27 July
2000 the applicant applied urgently in the High Court for an order declaring
“unconstitutional and invalid” the appointment of the first respondent as an
acting judge.  The next day the matter came before
Spoelstra J, who dismissed
it with costs and stated that he would furnish his reasons if and when
requested to do so.  The applicant
asked for the reasons and gave notice of an
application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (the SCA)
against the
dismissal of his application.  On 2 August 2000 the judge orally
delivered his reasons for dismissing the original application
and proceeded
also to dismiss the application for leave to appeal.  The applicant, who had
been telephonically notified of the
hearing, was not present in court when this
took place.
[2]
The
applicant communicated with the court transcribers but could not trace the
transcript of the proceedings on 2 August 2000.Â
He nevertheless petitioned the
SCA for leave to appeal and, having been told by the registrar of that Court
that a copy of the
original judgment was needed, again tried to trace a
transcript.  This attempt also failed and in March 2001 the SCA notified the

applicant that his application for leave to appeal had been refused “for want
of realistic prospects of success on appeal”.Â
He thereupon turned to this
Court for relief.
[3]
The
recording of the proceedings on 2 August 2000 has now been traced, transcribed
and forwarded to this Court.  From this it is
clear not only that the judge
duly considered the original application and gave detailed reasons for
dismissing it, but that such
dismissal was fully warranted.  The application
was devoid of merit and refusal of leave to appeal, first by Spoelstra J and
then
by the SCA was no less warranted.  Moreover, there is no basis for the
complaint the applicant addressed to this Court that he
has been dealt with
unfairly by the High Court or the SCA.  On the contrary, although the case
against the first respondent was
without any substance, Spoelstra J heard and
decided the matter urgently, responded promptly and fully to the request for
reasons
and, had the applicant attended the proceedings at the time specified,
he would have heard why his original application had been
dismissed and why he
was being refused leave to appeal.  The reasons furnished by the judge are
couched in layman’s language
and explain why the applicant had no basis for
contending that any of his constitutional rights could be infringed by the
acting
appointment he challenged.
[4]
There
is no reasonable prospect that the applicant could persuade this Court of the
validity of his constitutional contentions.Â
His original complaint had no
merit and the basis upon which he wished to raise it in this Court, namely the
alleged failure on
the part of Spoelstra J to give reasons for his decision,
has been shown to be wrong.
Order
[5]
The
application for direct access to this Court and for alternative relief is
accordingly dismissed.
Chaskalson P, Langa DP,
Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O’Regan J, Sachs J and Yacoob J
concur in the judgment
of Kriegler J.