Abstract
The principle of res judicata is well-established in our law: essentially it means that parties to a dispute have only one metaphorical "bite at the cherry". The "bite" can entail appealing through the hierarchy of courts, but once the parties have exhausted their appeals, they cannot re-litigate the same dispute. However, in the recent case of Molaudzi v S 2015 2 SACR 341 (CC) the appellant attempted to appeal to the Constitutional Court twice: the first time the application for leave to appeal was dismissed; the second time the application was granted and the appeal upheld. The appellant got a second "bite at the cherry". In Molaudzi v S the Constitutional Court developed the common law by creating an interest-of-justice exception to the principle of res judicata and – for the first time in the Constitutional Court's history – overturned one of its own judgements. In this case note I present the background of the case of Molaudzi v S, analyse the judgement, and differentiate it from another Constitutional Court case that dealt with res judicata, namely Mpofu v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development 2013 2 SACR 407 (CC).
Highlights
In the case of Molaudzi v S1 the Constitutional Court developed the common law by creating an exception to the principle of res judicata and – for the first time in its history – overturned one of its own judgements
In this case note I present the background of the case of Molaudzi v S, analyse the judgement, and differentiate it from another Constitutional Court case that dealt with res judicata, namely Mpofu v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development 2013 2 SACR 407 (CC)
This note is structured as follows: Part 2 introduces the principle of res judicata; Part 3 presents the factual background of the case; Part 4 analyses the legal argument presented to the Constitutional Court; Part 5 analyses the Constitutional Court's judgement; Part 6 compares the case of Molaudzi v S with an analogous case where the Constitutional Court was requested to overturn one of its previous judgements, but without success; and Part 7 concludes this note with a summary of the salient points
Summary
In the case of Molaudzi v S1 the Constitutional Court developed the common law by creating an exception to the principle of res judicata and – for the first time in its history – overturned one of its own judgements. This note is structured as follows: Part 2 introduces the principle of res judicata; Part 3 presents the factual background of the case; Part 4 analyses the legal argument presented to the Constitutional Court; Part 5 analyses the Constitutional Court's judgement; Part 6 compares the case of Molaudzi v S with an analogous case where the Constitutional Court was requested to overturn one of its previous judgements, but without success; and Part 7 concludes this note with a summary of the salient points
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
