About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Constitutional Court
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Constitutional Court
>>
2002
>>
[2002] ZACC 32
|
|
SAMWU (South African Municipal Workers Union) v City of Cape Town and Others (CCT 10/02) [2002] ZACC 32; 2002 (4) SA 451 (CC); 2002 (10) BCLR 1083 (CC) (9 May 2002)
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Case CCT 10/02
SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION
          Â
          Â
          Â
           Â
    Â
Applicant
versus
THE CITY OF
CAPE TOWN
          Â
          Â
          Â
          Â
          Â
          Â
    Â
First Respondent
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF THE
PROVINCE OF THE
WESTERN CAPE
      Â
          Â
Second
Respondent
MINISTER OF SAFETY
AND
SECURITY
  Â
          Â
          Â
  Â
Third Respondent
NATIONAL
COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE
                Â
Fourth Respondent
INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL & ALLIED TRADE
UNION
                     Â
Fifth Respondent
POLICE, PRISONS AND
CIVIL RIGHTS
UNION
               Â
Sixth Respondent
MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
                Â
Intervening Party
Decided on
:
9 May 2002
JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal directly to
this court against a decision and order of the Cape of Good Hope High
Court.
The applicant unsuccessfully approached the High Court seeking an
order setting aside a decision by the first respondent to establish
a municipal
police force. This decision had been taken without first consulting the
applicant. The applicant then sought
a certificate from the High Court in
terms of rule 18 of the Rules of this Court. At the same time, the
applicant sought leave
from the High Court to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Appeal in the event that this Court should refuse leave to appeal.
[2] The High Court issued a
certificate stating that there was no constitutional matter of substance
involved in the application and
that it was not in the interests of justice for
the matter to be brought directly to the
Constitutional Court
. On the other
hand, the High Court certified that there was a reasonable prospect that this
Court would reach a conclusion
different to its own and that there was
sufficient evidence on the record to enable this Court to dispose of the matter
without having
to refer the matter back to the High Court for further
evidence. The High Court also granted leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Appeal in the event that this Court refused leave to appeal. The
first and second applicants have lodged notices of
their intention to oppose
this application.
[3] Given that this is a
matter in the first instance concerning the interpretation of a statute, rather
than the interpretation of
a constitutional provision, and given that there are
no other reasons to compel this Court to consider the matter on a direct appeal
at this stage, it is our view that it is not in the interests of justice to
permit the applicant to appeal directly to this Court,
and that its application
to do so should be refused. This application is a matter which should be
heard first by the Supreme
Court of Appeal. In reaching this conclusion,
however, we wish to emphasise that the Court is not confirming the finding of
the High Court that the application does not raise a constitutional matter of
substance.
[4] As the respondents in this
Court have filed papers, costs have been incurred by both applicants and
respondents. Although
we have declined the application, we do not think
it was unreasonable for the applicants to have approached this Court. In
the circumstances, costs should be costs in the appeal to the Supreme Court of
Appeal.
[5] The following order is
made:
The
application for leave to appeal directly to this court is refused.
Costs to be costs in the appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Chaskalson CJ,
Langa DCJ, Ackermann J, Du Plessis AJ, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J,
Ngcobo J, OâRegan J, Sachs J and Skweyiya
AJ.
CHASKALSON CJ:
For the
applicant:
Cheadle,
Thompson & Haysom Inc,
Johannesburg
.
For the first
respondent: Herold Gie & Broadhead,
Cape Town
.
For the second respondent: State Attorney,
Cape Town
.