appeal, an appellant is entitled to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision, refusing condonation as of right. If the Supreme Court upholds the appeal . . . the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for the merits of the appeal to be heard and decided in that court. This is so because the Supreme Court does not have the power to hear the appeal on the merits, there being no provision in our law for an appeal directly to the Supreme Court against a conviction by a magistrate’. Mr Heathcote referred to the judgments in these criminal cases to emphasise his argument (as I understood it) that s 14 of the Supreme Court Act provides a litigant a right of appeal to the Supreme Court where there is no limitation by the provisions of any law and in circumstances where a particular situation is not covered by the provisions of any law. Counsel argued by analogy to these criminal matters referred to, that in the present instance the court a quo by striking the application from the roll, did not refuse the application, obviously neither was the application granted. In such an instance, the striking of the application from the roll is not covered by the provisions of s 18(2)(b) of the High Court Act, which provides that where leave to appeal has been refused, a litigant may appeal to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. In such a case, as demonstrated by the judgment in the criminal matters, the applicant, in terms of s 14(1) of the Supreme Court Act, has a right of appeal to the Supreme Court so it was submitted.
appeal, an appellant is entitled to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision, refusing condonation as of right. If the Supreme Court upholds the appeal . . . the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for the merits of the appeal to be heard and decided in that court. This is so because the Supreme Court does not have the power to hear the appeal on the merits, there being no provision in our law for an appeal directly to the Supreme Court against a conviction by a magistrate’. Mr Heathcote referred to the judgments in these criminal cases to emphasise his argument (as I understood it) that s 14 of the Supreme Court Act provides a litigant a right of appeal to the Supreme Court where there is no limitation by the provisions of any law and in circumstances where a particular situation is not covered by the provisions of any law. Counsel argued by analogy to these criminal matters referred to, that in the present instance the court a quo by striking the application from the roll, did not refuse the application, obviously neither was the application granted. In such an instance, the striking of the application from the roll is not covered by the provisions of s 18(2)(b) of the High Court Act, which provides that where leave to appeal has been refused, a litigant may appeal to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. In such a case, as demonstrated by the judgment in the criminal matters, the applicant, in terms of s 14(1) of the Supreme Court Act, has a right of appeal to the Supreme Court so it was submitted.