About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Constitutional Court
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Constitutional Court
>>
2008
>>
[2008] ZACC 18
|
|
Lekolwane and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (CCT 47/05) [2008] ZACC 18; 2009 (2) BCLR 158 (CC) (3 October 2008)
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
[2008]
ZACC 18
Case CCT
47/05
PHINEAS
LEKOLWANE
First Applicant
ELIZABETH LEKOLWANE
Second Applicant
versus
MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Respondent
Decided
on : 3 October 2008
JUDGMENT
THE
COURT:
The
applicants are Mr Phineas Lekolwane and Mrs Elizabeth Lekolwane.
Their application for leave to appeal was struck from
the roll on
22 August 2006 after their applications for condonation and
postponement of the matter were both refused.
1
The applicants now ask for an order reinstating the application
for leave to appeal on the court roll.
The
applicants are both in a witness protection programme and the
appeal they hope to prosecute concerns the interpretation
of a
regulation that determines payment of an allowance to people in a
witness protection programme. They contend for an interpretation
which, simply put, is aimed at the applicants being paid more money
while in the programme. A single judge and a full Court
have
rejected the applicants’ contentions.
It
is not necessary to repeat the reasons for the refusal of the
applicants’ application for condonation and their application
for a postponement. Suffice it to say that the matter had been
postponed once before, the first applicant had been warned
that
that postponement would be the final one, and the Court held that
good cause had not been shown for a further postponement.
2
The
application for leave to appeal may be reinstated only if the
applicants show that it is in the interests of justice to
do so.
Indeed, this Court adverted to the reinstatement of the matter in
the reasons referred to earlier:
“
Naturally this does not
mean that the doors are completely shut to a litigant. A party who
wishes to approach the Court afresh
will be required to show good
cause and give a full explanation as to why their application should
be enrolled in view of its
history.”
3
It
will accordingly be in the interests of justice to re-enrol the
application for leave to appeal if the applicants show good
cause
and provide a full explanation for their earlier conduct. The
affidavit lodged with the application to re-enrol does
not
supplement the reasons given by the applicants in their application
for a postponement on 22 August 2006 and accordingly
does not meet
the test of good cause for the reasons we gave in our earlier
judgment.
4
Moreover,
the reinstatement application was lodged with this Court on 4 June
2008, nearly two years after it had been earlier
struck from the
roll. No convincing explanation is given for this delay either.
The applicants state that after the events
of 22 August 2006, they
needed to instruct yet a further team of legal representatives and
that this again required a new application
for legal aid. Why they
should have needed to instruct a new team of legal representatives
is nowhere explained. The applicants
also state that the new
application for legal aid was granted on 25 February 2008. No
explanation at all is given for the
further delay in bringing this
application from 25 February to 4 June 2008. It is accordingly
impossible to describe the account
given by the applicants as a
full and satisfactory explanation. Accordingly, the applicants
have again failed to give a convincing
explanation for their delay
in approaching this Court and we are not satisfied that it is in
the interests of justice to re-enrol
the application.
The
application is refused.
Order
The application is refused.
There is no order as to costs.
Langa
CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O’Regan J,
Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob
J.
1
The reasons for this decision were provided on 23
November 2006. See
Lekolwane and
Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
[2006] ZACC 19
;
2007 (3) BCLR 280
(CC).
2
Above n 1 at p
aras 8 and 20.
3
Above n 1 at para 18.
4
See n 1 at paras 17-20.