The applicant, Marius Van Vuuren, was sentenced by the Magistrates' Court in Nigel for failure to pay maintenance in respect of his two minor children. The proceedings arose from maintenance court proceedings. The applicant sought leave to appeal to the High Court, which was dismissed. He thereafter sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which was also rejected. He then approached the Constitutional Court.
The application was dismissed.
The Constitutional Court has jurisdiction only in respect of constitutional matters or issues connected with a decision on a constitutional matter as provided in section 167(3) of the Constitution. A complaint that a criminal court has erred on the facts does not, on its own, constitute a constitutional matter and therefore does not fall within the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction.
The Court noted that the application did not comply with the Constitutional Court rules in that no specific relief was identified and there was apparently no service of the application upon interested parties. However, the Court was prepared to overlook these procedural defects for the purposes of determining the application on its merits (or lack thereof).
This case reinforces the limited jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court in South African law. It confirms that the Constitutional Court will not entertain matters that are purely factual in nature without any constitutional dimension. The case serves as an important reminder of the jurisdictional boundaries established in section 167(3) of the Constitution and reaffirms the principle established in S v Boesak that mere factual disputes in criminal proceedings do not constitute constitutional matters deserving of the Constitutional Court's attention.