Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others

The applicant, Hugh Glenister, brought an application in terms of Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court seeking a variation of a costs order made by the Constitutional Court in Glenister II (2011). Although he had been successful in the main constitutional challenge and was awarded costs (including two counsel), the costs order did not include the qualifying fees of an expert witness. The applicant contended that this omission was a mistake, as expert costs had been requested in the notice of motion and heads of argument. He argued that the expert’s services were necessary and useful, and that the general rule that costs follow the event should apply.

The application to vary the costs order under Rule 42 was refused. No order as to costs was made in respect of the Rule 42 application.

The case clarifies the limited scope of Rule 42 in the Constitutional Court and affirms that expert witness costs will only be awarded where the expert provides appreciable assistance on matters beyond the court’s competence. It reinforces principles governing admissibility and relevance of expert evidence in constitutional litigation and underscores that constitutional validity of legislation generally does not require expert testimony.