Court refuses witness appeal
2008-10-03 17:39
Johannesburg - A Limpopo couple will not be able to appeal to the Constitutional Court for the payment of daily allowances to each member of their family on the witness protection programme.
The Constitutional Court on Friday refused to reinstate Phineas Lekolwane and his wife Elizabeth's application for leave to appeal against a high court ruling denying payment of R10 per day to anyone other than the bread-winner in the family.
The Lekolwane family was placed on the witness protection programme on August 15 1998 after members of their community violently expelled them from their area and set fire to their home and spaza shop, destroying them.
As a result, Phineas Lekolwane lost the source of income with which he supported his family.
In 2002, after the department of justice and constitutional development had refused to pay Lekolwane, his wife and three children an allowance of R10 each, he took the matter to the Pretoria High Court.
However, it dismissed his application, holding that his wife had received no income before he was placed in protective custody and their children were legally incompetent to receive any income.
Lekolwane then appealed to a full bench of the High Court. It too dismissed the case, finding that it could not be shown that his wife and children forfeited income because he was placed on the programme.
Lekolwane claimed this interpretation of the law was unconstitutional because it unfairly discriminated against his family, and violated the rights of his children and family to dignity, healthcare, food and social security.
The Constitutional Court noted in its judgment on Friday that the Lekolwane's initial application for leave to appeal was struck from the roll on August 22 2006.
While reinstatement of the application was possible if they could show good cause, the affidavit they lodged did not do so.
"Moreover, the reinstatement application was lodged with this court on 4 June 2008, nearly two years after it had earlier been struck from the roll.
"No convincing explanation is given for this delay either," the court found, adding: "We are not satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to re-enrol the application."
- SAPA