South Africa: Constitutional Court

You are here:
SAFLII >>
Databases >>
South Africa: Constitutional Court >>
2002 >>
[2002] ZACC 32
| Noteup
| LawCite
SAMWU (South African Municipal Workers Union) v City of Cape Town and Others (CCT 10/02) [2002] ZACC 32; 2002 (4) SA 451 (CC); 2002 (10) BCLR 1083 (CC) (9 May 2002)
Download original files |
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case CCT 10/02
SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION Applicant
versus
THE CITY OF
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF THE
PROVINCE OF THE
MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Third Respondent
NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Fourth Respondent
INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL & ALLIED TRADE UNION Fifth Respondent
POLICE, PRISONS AND CIVIL RIGHTS UNION Sixth Respondent
MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT Intervening Party
Decided on : 9 May 2002
JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal directly to this court against a decision and order of the Cape of Good Hope High Court. The applicant unsuccessfully approached the High Court seeking an order setting aside a decision by the first respondent to establish a municipal police force. This decision had been taken without first consulting the applicant. The applicant then sought a certificate from the High Court in terms of rule 18 of the Rules of this Court. At the same time, the applicant sought leave from the High Court to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal in the event that this Court should refuse leave to appeal.
[2] The High Court issued a
certificate stating that there was no constitutional matter of substance
involved in the application and
that it was not in the interests of justice for
the matter to be brought directly to the
[3] Given that this is a matter in the first instance concerning the interpretation of a statute, rather than the interpretation of a constitutional provision, and given that there are no other reasons to compel this Court to consider the matter on a direct appeal at this stage, it is our view that it is not in the interests of justice to permit the applicant to appeal directly to this Court, and that its application to do so should be refused. This application is a matter which should be heard first by the Supreme Court of Appeal. In reaching this conclusion, however, we wish to emphasise that the Court is not confirming the finding of the High Court that the application does not raise a constitutional matter of substance.
[4] As the respondents in this Court have filed papers, costs have been incurred by both applicants and respondents. Although we have declined the application, we do not think it was unreasonable for the applicants to have approached this Court. In the circumstances, costs should be costs in the appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
[5] The following order is made:
The application for leave to appeal directly to this court is refused. Costs to be costs in the appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Chaskalson CJ, Langa DCJ, Ackermann J, Du Plessis AJ, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Ngcobo J, O’Regan J, Sachs J and Skweyiya AJ.
CHASKALSON CJ:
For the
applicant:
Cheadle,
Thompson & Haysom Inc,
For the first
respondent: Herold Gie & Broadhead,
For the second respondent: State Attorney,