The Constitutional Court will be asked to decide whether a Supreme Court of Appeals (SCA) judgment contained 114 factual errors when it sits in Johannesburg tomorrow.
Brian de Lacy and Barry Beadon instituted action in the High Court in Johannesburg claiming damages allegedly caused by a fraudulent tender process conducted by the South African Post Office (SAPO).
They were partially successful, but both the SAPO and the applicants were granted leave to appeal to the SCA.
The SCA dismissed their appeal and ruled in favour of SAPO, so the two approached the Constitutional Court for the first time.
That application was based on an aspect of the element of intention in claims for damages related to state tenders, but it was dismissed
They then approached the Judicial Services Commission regarding the factual findings made, but the JSC suggested a fresh approach to the Constitutional Court.
They contend that the mistakes include factual findings that render the judgment inconsistent with certain admissions made in SAPO’s plea.
The applicants ask the Constitutional Court to set aside the judgment of the SCA and decide the matter itself or send it back to the SCA for reconsideration.
They want the court to declare that the SCA’s judgment infringed their rights.