About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Constitutional Court
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Constitutional Court
>>
2005
>>
[2005] ZACC 24
|
|
Janse Van Rensburg v Maluti-A-Phofung Municipality (CCT63/05) [2005] ZACC 24; 2006 (4) BCLR 457 (CC) (14 December 2005)
CONSTITUTIONAL
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case CCT
63/05
JPL JANSE VAN
RENSBURG Applicant
versus
MALUTI-A-PHOFUNG
MUNICIPALITY Respondent
Decided on : 14
December 2005
JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
Mr Janse van
Rensburg has applied directly under section 167(6)(a) of the
Constitution to this Court for relief against the Maluti-a-Phofung
Municipality (formerly Harrismith). He is a Chief Engineer. He
acts without legal representation.
The background
to the application was a decision by the Municipality not to renew
a lease agreement in relation to property first
let to the
applicantâs mother, and on which his mother and he had made
improvements. The applicant and the Municipality disagreed
as to
the consequence of the termination of the lease agreement. The
applicant subsequently took the matter to the Bloemfontein
High
Court, where his claim was dismissed because of his failure to
amend his particulars of claim in time.
It is clear
that the applicant feels that he was unfairly treated by the
respondent. However, not only did the applicant not
comply with
the Rules of this Court. He failed in his notice of motion to
explain specifically why it is in the interests of
justice for this
Court to grant direct access to him. The applicant seeks
substantially the same relief in this Court as he
did in the High
Court. It is not clear from the papers that proceedings in the
High Court are not still pending, that the possibilities
of
arbitration have been excluded, or that there are reasons why he
should not note an appeal to another court, if he feels aggrieved
by the High Courtâs decision.
This Court has
consistently pointed out that it will grant direct access if it is
in the interests of justice and if exceptional
circumstances exist.
No exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated by the
applicant to justify the hearing of this matter
at this stage in
this Court. It is not in the interests of justice to grant direct
access to him.
The
application for direct access to this Court is accordingly
dismissed.
THE COURT: Langa
CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der
Westhuizen J, Yacoob J.