Levy v Glynos

The applicant, Delene Johanna Levy, had previously applied for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal. On 15 August 2000, the Constitutional Court refused leave to appeal after considering the application summarily under rule 18(1)(b) of the Constitutional Court Rules, without hearing oral or written argument beyond that contained in the application itself. The applicant then lodged a notice of motion seeking to set aside the Court's order refusing leave to appeal and requesting permission to address the Court on the application for leave to appeal.

• Whether the Constitutional Court should set aside its previous order refusing leave to appeal
• Whether exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons exist to reopen a final and definitive order of the Constitutional Court
• The appropriate application of rule 18(10) of the Constitutional Court Rules in dealing with applications summarily

The application to set aside the order of the Constitutional Court refusing leave to appeal was dismissed. No order was made as to costs.

A final and definitive order of the Constitutional Court refusing leave to appeal will only be reopened in exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons. Finality in litigation is important in the public interest, and not only does the applicant have an interest in matters sought to be reopened, but respondents are entitled to get on with their lives. The Constitutional Court may summarily dismiss applications to set aside its previous orders under rule 18(10) where the grounds advanced are neither exceptional nor compelling and the points raised are without merit.

The Court observed that it is in the interests of all concerned, including the applicant, that meritless applications be refused summarily, as continued litigation runs the risk of further adverse costs awards against the applicant. The Court also acknowledged that the applicant may sincerely believe in the justness of her cause, but this subjective belief is not sufficient to constitute exceptional circumstances warranting the reopening of a final order.

This case establishes important principles regarding the finality of Constitutional Court orders and the limited circumstances under which the Court will reopen its own final decisions. It reinforces the importance of finality in litigation in the South African legal system and demonstrates the Constitutional Court's approach to applications seeking to set aside previous definitive orders. The case also illustrates the Court's use of its summary procedure under rule 18(10) of the Constitutional Court Rules.