The matter comprised two consolidated applications for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court against decisions of the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) made under section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. In Cloete and Another v S, the applicants were farmers convicted in the High Court of murder, kidnapping and attempted murder and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment. After their petitions for leave to appeal to the SCA were refused, they unsuccessfully sought reconsideration by the President of the SCA under section 17(2)(f). A later attempt to invoke section 17(2)(f) was treated as res judicata. In Sekgala v Nedbank Limited, the applicant defaulted on a home loan secured by a mortgage bond. After default judgment and the dismissal of his rescission application, he unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal, petitioned the SCA, and applied under section 17(2)(f). The President of the SCA refused reconsideration on the basis that no exceptional circumstances existed. Both applicants approached the Constitutional Court contending that the President’s refusal under section 17(2)(f) was appealable to that Court.
Condonation for late filings was granted in the Cloete matter. In both CCT 324/17 and CCT 63/18, the applications for leave to appeal were dismissed. No order as to costs was made.
This judgment clarifies the Constitutional Court’s approach to section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act and confirms that refusals by the President of the SCA under that provision are, as a rule, not appealable to the Constitutional Court. It reinforces the limits of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, underscores the factual nature of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ inquiry, and prevents the development of a dual-appeal process. The decision provides important guidance on the finality and function of section 17(2)(f) as a narrow procedural safety-net rather than a further appeal stage.