Helen Suzman Foundation v The Speaker of the National Assembly and Others

The Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) brought an urgent application in the Gauteng Division of the High Court seeking declaratory relief that Parliament and the Executive had failed to fulfil their constitutional obligations to enact legislation specifically regulating South Africa’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The application challenged the continued reliance on the Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002 and alleged that governing through regulations amounted to evasion of constitutionally required parliamentary law-making processes. The full court dismissed the application but made no adverse costs order against HSF, applying the Biowatch principle. HSF’s application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) was refused, and unlike the High Court, the SCA granted a costs order against HSF. HSF then applied under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 for reconsideration of the adverse costs order.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed with costs.

The case clarifies the limited scope of reconsideration under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act and reaffirms that the Biowatch principle does not create automatic immunity from adverse costs in constitutional litigation. It underscores that courts retain a discretion to award costs where continued litigation is unreasonable, even in public interest cases.