AC Hp R .~C-HP.~. \ / · African Commission on • Human and Peoples' Rights Hurnan Rights our Collective Responsibility Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court dismissed their application to leave to appeal, on the basis that the order of the High Court was correct and the Complainants' appeal did not have any reasonable prospects of success. 69. Further to this, the Respondent State contends that under South African law, there is a long-established practice that applications for leave to appeal may be dealt with summarily, without an oral hearing or comprehensive judgment. This, the Respondent State argues, is to avoid clogging the court roles with vexatious matters. South Africa submits that to require hearings and reasoned judgments in applications for leave to appeal would defeat the whole purpose of the requirement for leave to be obtained in the first place. FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION ON MERITS Alleged violation of Article 7 and 26 70. The Commission notes that the principal issue behind this Communication is the conduct of the Courts, being High Court Case Number 31884/2015, SCA 354/ 19 and Constitutional Court case of CCT162/19. The Complainants take issue primarily with 4 things (a) The High Court's refusal to allow the 1st Complainant to represent the 2nd Complainant in Case Number 31884/ 2015; (b) the High Court's dismissal of the 2nd Complainant's application for legal aid; (c) the High Court's joining of the l5t Complainant to the order on costs made against the 2nd Complainant; and (d) the Supreme Court of Appeal's dismissal of the Complainants' application for leave to appeal Case Number 31884/ 2015 in SCA 354/19, which was again upheld in Constitutional Court case of CCT162/19. The principal allegation here is that the Respondent State violated the Complainants' .right under Article 7 and 26 of the Charter by their courts not acting impartially in the abovementioned decisions. The Commission also notes that the allegations on the violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 9, 13, 19 and 20 of the Char ter are all based on the argument of judicial impropriety, and as such are dependent on the Commission's findings on this principal allegation. 71. The Commission is tasked to determine whether these acts violate the Complainants' right for their cause to be heard, specifically the guarantee of impartiality of the courts. The Commission w ill also determine whether, these four allegations amount to a violation of the Respondent State' obligati ~~ Article 26 of the Charter to guarantee the independence of the tft~?f-'ffe~"1◄:"'(;\ Commission will address the alleged violations arising from the c 15 I Page ,i,)<,.'Y'fl."" Africant\~ Un;on\Y The African Commission on Human and P .\; ..,.L,,.......,~ 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo West Coast Regi Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 Fm::.il · ~ 11-h~ ni11l(ri)~fri r.::,-1ininn nrn