Judicial review of inferior court proceedings - or, the ghost of prerogative writs in South African law
Geregtelike hersiening van die verrigtinge van laer howe - of, die skim van prerogative writs in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg
Erasmus, H. J. (2015-01)
CITATION: Erasmus, H.J. 2015. Judicial review of inferior court proceedings - or, the ghost of prerogative writs in South African law. Journal of South African Law / Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg, 2015(1):94-104.
Superior courts in South Africa have statutory powers to review the proceedings of inferior courts within their jurisdiction. The proceedings of superior courts are not so reviewable. Thus it was held in Gentiruco AG v Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd that it was common cause that the proceedings of the (then) supreme court "are not reviewable; the only remedy of an unsuccessful litigant is an appeal. The reason is that by statute only 'the proceedings of inferior courts' have been and are reviewable." The position is restated in Vereniging van Bo-Grondse Mynamptenare van SA v President of the Industrial Court: "Apart from the inherent power of the Supreme Court to review the proceedings of domestic tribunals other than courts of law, by statute only the proceedings of inferior courts have been and are reviewable by a Provincial or Local Division of the Supreme Court... ." The question as to the rationale of this statutory distinction between lower and higher courts has never been raised, let alone answered. Why should the proceedings of an inferior court be reviewable by a higher court, but the proceedings of a high court not be reviewable by a court higher in the hierarchy? Section 16(1) of the Namibian Supreme Court Act 15 of 1990, which confers upon the Namibian supreme court "jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the high court or any lower court", is indicative of the fact that there need not in principle be insuperable obstacles and objections to subjecting the proceedings of a high court to review. Any quest for the answer to the question must have as its starting point the historical context within which the statutory provisions in question originally came into being.
Hoër howe in Suid-Afrika het tradisioneel die bevoegdheid om die verrigtinge van laer howe in hersiening te neem. Die verrigtinge van 'n hoër hof is nie onderhewig aan hersiening nie, dog slegs aan appèl na 'n hof wat hoër in die hiërargie is. Geen rasionele grondslag bestaan vir hierdie onderskeid nie. In die Engelse reg het die hoër howe tradisioneel 'n toesighoudende bevoegdheid oor die verrigtinge van laer howe wat deur middel van die "prerogative writs" (tans "prerogative orders") uitgeoefen word. Die vier belangrike "prerogative writs" is habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibitio en mandamus. In sy verslag oor die vestiging van 'n nuwe hofstruktuur aan die Kaap het Bigge in 1826 aanbeveel dat daar 'n hooggeregshof geskep word met toesighoudende bevoegdheid oor die verrigtinge van laer howe deur middel van die "prerogative writs". Aan hierdie aanbeveling is uitvoering gegee deur die skepping in die Charter of Justice van 1828 van die supreme court of the Colony of Cape of Good Hope. Aan die aanbeveling vir die invoering van die "prerogative writs" kon nie uitvoering gegee word nie vanweë die besluit om die Romeins-Hollandse reg aan die Kaap te behou. Daar is egter wel uitvoering gegee aan die aanbeveling dat die supreme court 'n toesighoudende bevoegdheid gegee word, en wel in artikel 32 van die Charter of Justice van 1828. Dit verleen aan die hof die bevoegdheid om die verrigtinge van alle laer howe in die Kaap in hersiening te kan neem. Hierdie hersieningsbevoegdheid is mettertyd opgeneem in die statutêre bepalings waardeur hoër howe in die ander kolonies in Suider-Afrika geskep is. Na die totstandkoming van 'n eenvormige hofstruktuur in Suid-Afrika is die hersieningsbevoegdheid opgeneem in die Wet op die Hooggeregshof 59 van 1959 en in die Wet op Hoër Howe 10 van 2013. Die skim van die "prerogative writs" skuil agter al hierdie statutêre bepalings. In Namibië is afgewyk van die tradisie. In artikel 16(1) van die Namibiese Supreme Court Act 15 van 1990 word bevoegdheid aan die supreme court verleen om die verrigtinge van die high court in hersiening te neem. Die ervaring in die praktyk in Suid-Afrika toon geen behoefte aan die uitbreiding van die hersieningsbevoegdheid na die verrigtinge van die hoër howe nie.
Please refer to this item in SUNScholar by using the following persistent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/104516
Download article (384.5Kb)
Research Articles (Private Law) 
Secondary victimisation in the court procedures of rape cases : an analysis of four court cases ﻿
Viljoen, Charmell S. (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2003-03)
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Violence against women is a serious offence. Emotional and physical abuse can happen to our daughters, sisters and wives. Rape is a form of violence against women. It violates a woman's privacy, dignity ...