Greenfields Drilling CC and Others v Registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal and Others

The applicants sought to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal refusing them leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in a matter involving FirstRand Bank Limited. The Supreme Court of Appeal gave no reasons for refusing leave to appeal. The applicants claimed they were hamstrung in making an application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court because of the absence of reasons. They therefore applied to the Constitutional Court for direct access to determine the constitutionality of the Supreme Court of Appeal's practice of not giving reasons when refusing applications for leave to appeal.

• Whether the Constitutional Court should grant direct access to determine the constitutionality of the Supreme Court of Appeal's practice of not giving reasons when refusing leave to appeal
• Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal is constitutionally required to furnish reasons when refusing leave to appeal in non-constitutional matters
• Whether the precedent in Mphahlele applies where no constitutional issue arises in the underlying matter

The application for direct access was refused.

Where the Supreme Court of Appeal refuses leave to appeal in a non-constitutional matter and is the court of final instance, it is not constitutionally required to furnish reasons for its refusal. This does not violate the Constitution. The precedent in Mphahlele applies to such cases and direct access to the Constitutional Court will not be granted to challenge this practice in the absence of a constitutional issue.

The Court expressly left open the question of whether the Supreme Court of Appeal is obliged to furnish reasons when it refuses leave to appeal in cases where a constitutional issue arises. The Court noted at paragraph 4 that "it is therefore not necessary to consider the question whether the Supreme Court of Appeal is obliged to furnish reasons when it refuses leave to appeal in a case in which a constitutional issue arises." This suggests the Court recognizes this as a potentially distinct situation requiring different consideration, consistent with the qualification expressed in Mphahlele.

This case reinforces the principle established in Mphahlele that the Supreme Court of Appeal is not constitutionally required to give reasons when refusing leave to appeal in non-constitutional matters. It confirms that the Supreme Court of Appeal is the court of final instance in such matters and that the absence of reasons does not prejudice unsuccessful litigants. The judgment preserves the potential qualification that constitutional matters may require different treatment, though this issue was not decided. It demonstrates the Constitutional Court's approach to direct access applications and its adherence to precedent in matters of civil procedure.