Judicial Precedent

Mphahlele v First National Bank of South Africa Ltd

CitationNot provided in the judgment text; the official South African Law Reports citation cannot be determined from the record (only Constitutional Court case number CCT 23/98 and decision date of 1 March 1999 are given).

JurisdictionZA

Area of Law

Constitutional LawCivil ProcedureJudicial Process and Court Practice

Facts of the Case

The applicant, an attorney, had an adverse judgment in the Transvaal High Court concerning his trust account held with the respondent bank. His application was dismissed with costs, as was a subsequent application for condonation and for leave to appeal. He petitioned the Chief Justice for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal under section 21(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959. Two judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal refused the petition without oral argument and without furnishing reasons, in accordance with long-standing practice. The applicant requested reasons and was informed that reasons are not provided for refusals of leave to appeal. He then approached the Constitutional Court seeking orders compelling the judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal to furnish reasons and to grant leave to appeal, alleging that the failure to provide reasons breached the Constitution.

Judicial Outcome

The application was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

Legal Significance

The case is significant for clarifying the constitutional position on the duty to give reasons in South African law. It confirms that while reason-giving is generally integral to the rule of law and judicial accountability, courts of last instance may refuse leave to appeal without furnishing reasons without violating the Constitution. The judgment delineates the limits of constitutional rights to access to courts and information in the context of appellate procedure.