You are on the TAC legacy website. Please visit our new website: www.tac.org.za

Litigation

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /usr/www/users/tacaor/public_site/community/modules/taxonomy/taxonomy.pages.inc on line 34.

TAC v MINISTER OF HEALTH / MECS - 11 March 2002

CERTIFICATE IN TERMS OF RULE 18(6) OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES

BOTHA, J:

I hereby certify that the requirements set out in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of Rule 18(6) of the Constitutional Court Rules have been met.

_________________________
C BOTHA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

TAC v MINISTER OF HEALTH / MECS - 11 March 2002

JUDGMENT

BOTHA, J:

In this matter the respondents filed an application for leave to appeal against an order made by men on 14 December 2001.

The application was an application for a certificate in terms of Rule 18(6) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court and also, in the alterative presumably, for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

At the hearing the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was abandoned.

The applicants filed an application that leave to execute the order against the first to ninth respondents be granted pending the appeal. I assume that no order is brought against the tenth respondent because, as appeared from the papers in the main application, the tenth respondents is already substantially complying with the order.

Syndicate content