Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Constitutional Court dismissed the Psychological Society of South Africa's (PsySSA) application for leave to appeal a High Court order granting an indefinite postponement of proceedings against Dubula Jonathan Qwelane. Qwelane had published a 2008 article containing hate speech targeting LGBTI individuals, prompting a complaint by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). The High Court granted the postponement sine die without allowing SAHRC and PsySSA to file opposing affidavits, which the Constitutional Court deemed procedurally unfair. However, the Court concluded that intervening in the matter was not in the interests of justice, as the postponement was now set for March 2017 and would not leave the case in a permanent state of suspension.
Issues
- The court evaluated if the High Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the postponement. Key factors included the timeliness of the application, the sufficiency of the medical justification, potential prejudice to other parties, and the public interest. The judgment noted the High Court's failure to adequately weigh these factors, particularly the 'no difference' approach that dismissed the need for opposing submissions.
- The court addressed whether the High Court's decision to grant a postponement sine die without allowing PsySSA and the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) to file opposing affidavits violated procedural fairness (audi alteram partem). The judgment highlighted the importance of hearing all affected parties, even in interim applications, to ensure justice is both done and seen to be done.
- The court considered whether the Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA), acting as an amicus curiae in the lower court, had legal standing to apply for leave to appeal the High Court's order of postponement. This issue centered on the public interest in upholding the rights of LGBTI persons and the precedent from the Campus Law Clinic case, which recognized that non-parties may have standing if the matter involves significant public interest.
Holdings
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The High Court's discretion to grant a postponement was not judicially exercised, but intervention is not in the interests of justice given the specified hearing date in March 2017.
Remedies
The application for leave to appeal against the High Court's order of postponement was dismissed by the Constitutional Court. The Court held that while the High Court's decision was procedurally flawed, intervening at this stage was not in the interests of justice as the postponement is no longer indefinite and the matter is set for hearing in March 2017.
Legal Principles
The court emphasized the principle of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem (right to be heard). It held that denying SAHRC and PsySSA the opportunity to file answering affidavits before granting a postponement constituted procedural injustice. The judgment clarified that the right to a hearing cannot be dismissed based on perceived outcome irrelevance, as fair process requires considering all parties' perspectives to avoid miscarriage of justice.
Precedent Name
- Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism v George
- Campus Law Clinic, University of Kwa-Zulu Natal v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd
- Hoffmann v South African Airways
- McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC
- City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Afriforum
Cited Statute
- Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act
- Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
- Supreme Court Act
- Superior Courts Act
Judge Name
- Mhlantla
- Madlanga
- Musi
- Nkabinde
- Jafta
- Mbha
- Zondo
- Khampepe
- Froneman
- Cameron
Passage Text
- The Court said 'natural justice is not always or entirely about the fact or substance of fairness. It has also something to do with the appearance of fairness. In the hallowed phrase, 'Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done'.'
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- 'The factors that would be relevant would be: whether there is another reasonable and effective manner in which the challenge may be brought; the nature of the relief sought... the consequences of the infringement. The list of factors is not closed.'