Lekolwane and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

The applicants, Phineas Lekolwane, his wife, and their children were placed under protective custody in 1998 under the National Witness Protection Programme after community violence destroyed their home and business. Only the first applicant received a daily allowance under Regulation 22(1) of the Witness Protection Act 112 of 1998. The applicants unsuccessfully sought relief in the High Court and its full bench, including payment of allowances to the second applicant and children and a declaration that Regulation 22(1) was unconstitutional. They then applied to the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal. The proceedings before the Constitutional Court were repeatedly delayed due to non-compliance with court rules, changes in legal representation, and late applications for condonation and postponement.

The application for condonation and postponement was dismissed; the application for leave to appeal was struck off the roll; no order as to costs was made.

The case is significant for reaffirming strict procedural discipline in the Constitutional Court. It underscores that litigants must comply with court rules, that postponements are exceptional, and that repeated delays and lack of diligence can justify striking a matter off the roll even where constitutional issues are raised.