Hashtag Movement v Ethiopian Church of South Africa and Others

An appellant prosecuted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in terms of section 18(4) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. The order being appealed was made by a single judge of the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Bhisho (Matebese AJ) in terms of section 18(1) of the Act. Section 18(1) deals with the suspension of operation and execution of a decision pending an appeal, and section 18(4) provides for an automatic right of appeal to the next highest court where a court orders otherwise under exceptional circumstances. The appellant brought the automatic appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

• Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an automatic appeal under section 18(4) of the Superior Courts Act from an order made by a single judge of the High Court
• What constitutes the 'next highest court' for purposes of section 18(4) of the Superior Courts Act when appealing from an order of a single judge of the High Court
• Whether the proper appeal route from a single judge of the High Court lies to the full court of that Division or directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal

The appeal was struck from the roll with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Where an order is made by a single judge of the High Court in terms of section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, an automatic appeal under section 18(4) lies to the full court of that Division as the 'next highest court', not to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The full court of a Division is the next highest court above a single judge of that Division. The Supreme Court of Appeal only has jurisdiction to hear appeals from a single judge where that judge has directed otherwise in terms of section 17(6)(a) of the Act, which requires either that the decision involves a question of law of importance or that the administration of justice requires consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal. In the absence of such direction, the Supreme Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Court noted that no basis was advanced for why the appellant should not pay the costs that the respondent was compelled to incur because of the prosecution of the appeal before the Supreme Court of Appeal. This suggests that parties who prosecute appeals in the wrong court without proper basis may face adverse costs consequences. The judgment also emphasizes that the hierarchy of South African courts is 'plainly established' and that the default position under section 17 is 'manifest in the text of the section itself', indicating that there should be little room for confusion on this point.

This case clarifies the proper appeal route for automatic appeals under section 18(4) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. It confirms that the 'next highest court' from a single judge of the High Court is the full court of that Division, not the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judgment reinforces the court hierarchy and the default position established in section 17 of the Act that appeals from single judges lie to the full court unless the exceptional circumstances in section 17(6)(a) are met. It provides important guidance on court jurisdiction and the proper prosecution of automatic appeals, preventing unnecessary litigation before the wrong court and ensuring efficient administration of justice within the established court hierarchy.