Lekolwane and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

The applicants, Mr and Mrs Lekolwane, participants in a witness protection programme, sought to reinstate an application for leave to appeal that had previously been struck from the roll by the Constitutional Court on 22 August 2006 after their applications for condonation and postponement were refused. The underlying appeal concerned the interpretation of regulations governing the payment of allowances to persons in the witness protection programme, which the applicants contended should be interpreted to entitle them to higher payments. After nearly two years, the applicants applied to have the leave to appeal reinstated, relying on explanations relating to changes in legal representation and delays in obtaining legal aid.

The application for reinstatement of the application for leave to appeal was refused. No order as to costs was made.

The case underscores the Constitutional Court’s strict approach to procedural compliance and delays, reaffirming that litigants must demonstrate good cause and provide full, satisfactory explanations when seeking indulgences such as reinstatement. It highlights that access to the Court is subject to procedural discipline, even in constitutional matters.