CCT14/10

[2010] ZACC 23

2011 (1) SA 388 (CC)

2011 (3) BCLR 264 (CC)

Mogoeng J

24 August 2010

24 November 2010

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3609

Applicant applies for direct access to CC for an order setting aside the restraining orders, and for leave to appeal against the eviction order and the writ of execution made by the South Gauteng High Court against him. The following orders are mentioned in the judgment: Shelly Court CC v Betlane, South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, Case No 2007/13744A, 17 October 2007, unreported; Shelly Court CC v Betlane, South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, Case No 2007/13744A, 2 June 2009, unreported; Betlane v Shelly Court CC, South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, Case No 2007/13744A, 15 June 2009, 27 January 2009 and 6 October 2009, unreported.

This was both an application for leave to appeal and an application for direct access. The application for leave to appeal was for the setting aside of an eviction order which evicted the applicant from the responden'ts premises. The direct access application challenged orders of the High Court which prohibited the applicant from appealing against his eviction until past legal fees were paid and security for costs for the appeal was provided. The applicant contended, as a lay litigant, these orders infringed his section 34 right to access to courts. Prior to the hearing, the respondent abandoned all the restraining orders and as a result the application for direct access and leave to appeal was dismissed. However, the writ of execution, which allowed the respondents to evict the applicant, was set aside on the grounds that rule 49(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court was not complied with as the writ was issued while an appeal was pending. Judgment: Mogoeng J (unanimous).