[ad_1]
Andile Mngxitama of Black First Land First (BLF). Photo: Felix Dlangamandla
- The SCA annulled a decision of the Equality Court, in which it declared null and void a sentence in favor of Solidaridad.
- The SCA referred the matter to the Equality Court, for the dispute to be resolved.
- He said the court, by overturning its own sentence, left the parties without a binding decision.
The Supreme Court of Appeals (SCA) overturned an order issued by the Johannesburg Equality Court, in which the sentence in the Solidarity and Black First Land First (BLF) union case was declared null.
The ruling was in favor of the union after the court heard a complaint against BLF members for racial comments, following the death of four students at Driehoek Hoërskool in Vanderbijlpark in February 2019.
The students were killed and 26 others were injured when a concrete slab linking two school buildings fell on them, News24 reported.
Three died at the scene, while the other succumbed to his injuries in hospital. They were on their way to class when the incident occurred.
At the time, BLF spokeswoman Lindsay Maasdorp said their deaths meant future problems had been eliminated, adding that God responded to the incident.
“Why should we disapprove of ancestors’ requests to punish land thieves, including their offspring,” Maasdorp said.
READ | 4th student dies in Hoërskool Driehoek disaster
Solidarity took the matter to court.
But due to a SCA ruling in Qwelane v SAHRC, which found the definition of hate speech to be unconstitutional and invalid, Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng was forced to overturn his ruling.
The Subcommittee on Accreditation has referred the matter to the Equality Court for finalization.
In a judgment drafted by Appeals Court Judge Caroline Nicholls, which was handed down this week, she said: “The superior court simply did not fulfill its primary function.
“The order he issued declared the process null and void and, therefore, he refused to resolve the dispute in court.”
She added:
In the same vein, the court, by declaring its own “sentence” void, left the parties without a binding decision. A court does not have the power not to decide a case that is properly presented to it. Nor can a court declare its own proceedings null.
Nicholls also said that a court “may lack jurisdiction or suffer some other limitation of its powers, but a court that rules on these matters nevertheless issues a decision that is determinative in the case before it. But that does not. is what happened before the higher court in this matter. ” He said that the SCA’s decision in the Qwelane case was relevant to the decision to be made by the court.
“The higher court should have taken the time to consider Qwelane and the submissions of the parties, and then render its judgment to decide the case. More recklessly, the higher court could have rendered the written judgment it has prepared without regard to Qwelane. In any respect, an order determining the dispute would have been issued in court, “Nicholls said.
READ | BLF leaders safe after judge makes a U-turn on racial comments directed at dead Hoërskool Driehoek pupils
“The higher court took no action. Instead, it pronounced its own ‘judgment’ as a nullity or, indeed, the proceedings as a nullity. It simply refused to resolve a dispute that was duly before it and left the parties without This state of affairs cannot be left indifferent by this court. ”
Did you know that you can comment on this article? Subscribe to News24 and add your voice to the conversation.
