Quote of the week

An ‘important purpose of section 34 [of the Constitution] is to guarantee the protection of the judicial process to persons who have disputes that can be resolved by law’ and that the right of access to court is ‘foundational to the stability of an orderly society. It ensures the peaceful, regulated and institutionalised mechanisms to resolve disputes, without resorting to self-help. The right of access to court is a bulwark against vigilantism, and the chaos and anarchy which it causes. Construed in this context of the rule of law and the principle against self-help in particular, access to court is indeed of cardinal importance’.The right guaranteed s34 would be rendered meaningless if court orders could be ignored with impunity:the underlying purposes of the right — and particularly that of avoidance of self-help — would be undermined if litigants could decide which orders they wished to obey and which they wished to ignore.

Plasket AJ
Victoria Park Ratepayers' Association v Greyvenouw CC and others (511/03) [2003] ZAECHC 19 (11 April 2003)
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