Quote of the week

As seductive as certain perspectives of international law may appear to those who disagree with the outcome of the interpretative exercise conducted by this Court in the contempt judgment, sight must not be lost of the proper place of international law, especially in respect of an application for rescission. The approach that my Brother adopts may be apposite in the context of an appeal, where a court is enjoined to consider whether the court a quo erred in its interpretation of the law. Although it should be clear by now, I shall repeat it once more: this is not an appeal, for this Court’s orders are not appealable. I am deeply concerned that seeking to rely on articles of the ICCPR as a basis for rescission constitutes nothing more than sophistry.

Khampepe J
Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 28 (17 September 2021)
13 October 2015

Available papers in Constitutional Court Nkandla challenges from EFF and DA

EFF heads of argument FINAL

Notice of Motion EFF v Speaker and Another img-806083234

President Jacob Zuma’s Affidavit ANS.AFF.EFF.JZ-STATE.ATTORNEY(170915)_final[1]

Leave granted for PP to intervene Order – CCT 143 Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Asse…[3]

Directions – CCT 143-15 The Economic Freedom Fighters v The Speaker of the National Assembly and Another

Set Down Directions CCT 171-15 Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the Nati…[2]

NoM Nkandla (6 August 2015)

Public Protector- Founding Affidavit intervention application (final) (GM settled)- 26.09.2015

EFF v Speaker Another – Notice of Motion- intervention application (FINAL)

150908 – DA vs Speaker NOM (CC)_FINAL

15 09 08 – DA vs Speaker_Selfe FA_CC_FINAL EJ

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest