Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:00:47Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:00:47Z
dc.date.created 2003-11-24 en
dc.identifier.citation [2002] ZACC 4
dc.identifier.citation 2002 (4) SA 317 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2002 (5) BCLR 454 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/2126
dc.title Van der walt v Metcash Trading Ltd en
dc.title.alternative CCT37/01 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT37/01 en
dc.date.hearing 21 February 2002
dc.contributor.judge Goldstone J Majority judgment
dc.contributor.judge Madala J dissenting judgment
dc.contributor.judge Ngcobo J dissenting judgment
dc.contributor.judge Sachs J dissenting judgment
dc.date.judgment 11 April 2002
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/2126/Full%20judgment%20%28391%20Kb%29-25352.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.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.
dc.concourt.casehistory Case involves applications for leave to appeal against orders of the High Court granting summary judgment. In Appeal case number 276/2001 leave to appeal was granted. In Appeal Case number 259/2001 the Supreme Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal and is discussed in casu.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account