Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:13:23Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:13:23Z
dc.date.created 2010-09-05 en
dc.identifier.citation [2011] ZACC 17
dc.identifier.citation 2011 (9) BCLR 905 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3620
dc.title De Lacy and Another v South African Post Office en
dc.title.alternative CCT24-10 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT24/10 en
dc.date.hearing 8 February 2011
dc.contributor.judge Moseneke DCJ
dc.date.judgment 24 May 2011
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3620/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%2024%20May%202011.PDF?sequence=37&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis An application for direct access in terms of Rule 18 read with section 167(6) of the Constitution seeking to overturn a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal on the basis of allegations that the judges of the appeal court had deliberately distorted evidence in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion against the applicants. The applicants alleged both before this Court and before the Judicial Service Commission that the appeal court's judgment was the product of gross misconduct and incompetence and that it was so out of kilter with the record that the only explanation could be judicial bias. The Court dismissed the application for direct access finding that: the allegations were entirely without merit; the application was improperly brought as a second attack on a judgment that the applicants did not like; that the appeal court's findings were either correct, were reasonable inferences on the evidence, or if any misdirection had occurred, that such misdirection was not material to the outcome of the appeal. Although this Court was the only court with competence to hear the matter, other considerations warranted that the applicants not be granted direct access including: no prospects of success; prolonged delay in alleging bias; that the applicants had approached this Court before seeking essentially the same relief; and the fact that the applicants had made trenchant accusations of deliberate judicial bias, ulterior motive and impropriety, only later to withdraw them and tender an unqualified apology. This latter consideration weighed heavily in the determination of costs, which were ordered to be paid by the applicants on an attorney and own client (punitive) scale. Judgment: Moseneke DCJ (unanimous).
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for direct access to the CC against a judgment and order of the SCA delivered on 13 May 2009: South African Post Office v De Lacy and Another 2009 (5) SA 255 (SCA). See also earlier Pretoria High Court judgment: Brian Patrick De Lacy and Barry Jack Beadon v South African Post Office, Case No. 11477/2003, Transvaal Provincial Division, 11 December 2007, unreported.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account