Policy, Law, Economics and Politics - Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
This privately-owned website is operated and maintained by Creamer Media
We have detected that the browser you are using is no longer supported. As a result, some content may not display correctly.
We suggest that you upgrade to the latest version of any of the following browsers:
close notification
28 May 2017
Embed Code Close
  Related social media
Related social media terms:

Initially there were two applications for leave to appeal, one brought by the first respondent, the Minister, who at the hearing was represented by Adv. BR Tokota (SC) assisted by Adv. M Gwala and the second application was brought by the second respondent Gen. Mthandazo Berning Ntlemeza (“Ntlemeza”). 

Ntlemeza was represented by Adv. N Dukada (SC) assisted by Adv. Z Madlanga.  Because the applicants had, in their counter-application, challenged the constitutionality of section 18 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (“the Act”) and had sought an order declaring the said section unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it removed judicial discretion and peremptorily required an applicant to satisfy all the requirements of subsections 18(1) and (3) in order to execute and enforce an order, the fifth respondent, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (“the Minister of Justice”), joined the fray. Adv. F Kerachi represented the Minister of Justice. 

Her role was merely to take care of the interests of the Minister of Justice insofar as such interests related to the challenge to s 18 of the Act.

Edited by: Creamer Media Reporter
Comment Guidelines (150 word limit)
  Topics on this page
Online Publishers Association