Synopsis:
Application for special leave to appeal alternatively for direct access. On two successive days the Supreme Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal to one petitioner and granted leave to appeal to another petitioner. The applications were based on identical facts which were considered by different panels of judges. Applicant argued that the effect of the decisions was irrational and arbitrary and in conflict with the rule of law and that right of access to court had been violated. Also that his right to equality before the law and the right to equal protection and benefit of the law had been violated by the different outcomes of the two decisions. The majority of the Court per Goldstone J held that the Applicant's constitutional rights had not been violated by the contrary decisions. There was nothing to suggest that the decisions were made arbitrarily. Section 9(1) does not guarantee equality of outcome and s 34 was not violated. Dissents by Ngcobo J, Madala J and Sachs J.
