The applicant, Mr Kabelo Betlane, was a former tenant of residential premises owned by the respondent, Shelly Court CC, under an oral lease. Disputes arose regarding alleged arrear rental, leading to litigation in the Magistrates’ Court and later in the High Court. In 2007 the High Court granted an eviction order with costs against the applicant. While the applicant’s application for leave to appeal the eviction order was pending, the respondent obtained a writ of execution and the applicant was evicted. Several subsequent High Court orders barred the applicant from pursuing further litigation unless he paid outstanding costs or furnished security. The applicant, a lay litigant, approached the Constitutional Court alleging that these restraining and security-for-costs orders infringed his constitutional right of access to courts. Shortly before the hearing, the respondent abandoned the restraining orders, leaving the eviction order and costs orders intact.
The application for direct access was dismissed; leave to appeal against the eviction order was refused; leave to appeal concerning the writ of execution was granted; the writ of execution was declared unlawful and set aside; no order of reinstatement was made; the respondent was ordered to pay the disbursements incurred by the applicant’s legal representatives.
The case affirms the constitutional importance of access to courts and clarifies that procedural devices such as security-for-costs orders may not be used to unjustifiably bar litigants from pursuing appeals. It confirms that eviction always implicates constitutional rights and reinforces the suspension of execution pending appeal under rule 49(11). The judgment also underscores the courts’ duty to approach pleadings by unrepresented lay litigants with compassion and substance rather than technical rigidity.