Sunnyboy Edward Saane v Susan R. Hulme NO (Acting-Magistrate, Johannesburg Magistrates Court) and Minister of Justice

The applicant, a law student at the University of South Africa, was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment on a charge of corruption by the Johannesburg Magistrates' Court on 27 September 1999. On 30 September 1999, he was granted leave to appeal to the High Court against his conviction and sentence. By 6 July 2000, when he applied directly to the Constitutional Court, the appeal had not yet been set down for hearing in the High Court. The delay was due to the preparation of a corrected copy of the trial record, which ran to 1296 pages. The applicant was on bail pending the appeal.

• Whether the Constitutional Court should grant leave to appeal directly to it, bypassing the High Court appeal already granted
• Whether the delay in setting down the appeal constituted a denial of the right to a speedy trial
• Whether the procedural and substantive fairness complaints raised by the applicant warranted direct access to the Constitutional Court

The application for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court was refused.

Where an applicant has been granted leave to appeal to the High Court and that appeal is pending, the Constitutional Court will not grant direct access to bypass the High Court appeal, particularly where the matter raises both factual and legal issues that can appropriately be canvassed before the High Court. The ordinary court hierarchy should be respected, and the High Court is the appropriate forum for such appeals from the Magistrates' Court.

The Court noted administratively that delays in preparing trial records can impact the right to a speedy trial, and indicated that such concerns can be raised before the High Court. The Court's intervention through its Director to enquire about the delay demonstrates a practical concern for efficient case management, though this did not affect the jurisdictional determination that the High Court was the appropriate forum.

This case illustrates the Constitutional Court's approach to direct access applications where alternative remedies are available and appropriate. It demonstrates the Court's respect for the ordinary court hierarchy and its reluctance to bypass lower courts where they are competent to deal with the matter, particularly where both factual and legal issues are involved. The case also shows the Court's willingness to make practical enquiries to facilitate progress in cases, while still maintaining proper jurisdictional boundaries.