Gaming Association of South Africa (KwaZulu-Natal) and Others v Premier, KwaZulu-Natal, and Others (No 2)

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1997 (4) SA 507 (N)

Gaming Association of South Africa (KwaZulu-Natal) and Others v Premier, KwaZulu-Natal, and Others (No 2)
1997 (4) SA 507 (N)

1997 (4) SA p507

Citation	1997 (4) SA 507 (N)
Case No	242/97
Court	Natal Provincial Division
Judge	Levinsohn J
Heard	February 27, 1997
Judgment	February 27, 1997
Counsel	N Singh (with him K Govender) for the applicants; D A Gordon for the respondents

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Constitutional practice — Appeal — Leave to appeal — Procedure for application for leave to appeal — Constitutional Court Rule 18 — E Case before Provincial Division comprising constitutional as well F as non-constitutional issues — Rule 18 no longer applicable — Counsel abandoning grounds pertaining to non-constitutional issue — Court certifying application in terms of Rule 18(e).

Headnote : Kopnota

Following upon the judgment in Gaming Association of South Africa (KwaZulu-Natal) and Others v Premier of KwaZulu-Natal and Others (No 1), applicants delivered a notice in G terms of Rule 18(a) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court in which they set forth the grounds upon which they averred that the judgment was wrong. (Rule 18 certification procedure is a prerequisite for the consideration by the Constitutional Court of an application for leave to appeal.) The Court pointed out that the judgment was being assailed on the grounds that the H Court had been wrong on the administrative law issue as well (at 508E), and that once this point was raised, the issue was no longer solely a constitutional one. (At 508E/F.) In the result the provisions of Rule 18 were no longer applicable. (At 508F/G.) Faced with this difficulty counsel for the applicants abandoned the grounds pertaining to the review part of the case, thus enabling the Court to certify the matter in terms of Rule 18(e). The Court accordingly certified I (i) that the issue was not one of such substance that a ruling by the Constitutional Court was desirable; (ii) that the evidence before the Court was sufficient for the Constitutional Court to deal with the matter; and (iii) that there was no reasonable prospect that the Constitutional Court would reverse or materially alter the judgment if permission was given to bring an appeal. Because the applicants were despite the above certification still entitled under Rule 18(f) to apply J

1997 (4) SA p508

to the Constitutional Court...