I note that in the two cases cited by Kasuto in the article (namely Case No. SCA1 and Case No. SA 10/2006), where the Supreme Court was asked to reconsider an earlier judgment, the application was struck from the roll (i.e failed).
To quote the judgement in Case No. SA 10/2006:
"Article 81 has the purpose of reaffirming the operation of precedent within the hierarchy of our court structure. It reaffirms the locality of this Court at the apex of the judicial authority, and the binding nature of its decisions on all the other courts and all persons, right or wrong its decisions are absolutely binding unless reversed abandoned or departed from by this Court itself or contradicted by an Act of Parliament. The rule stare decisis et non quieta movere (stand by the decisions and do not disturb settled law) was adopted from the English Law with the establishment of the Supreme Court at the Cape in 182818. This country until independence ruled as an integral part of South Africa shares the Roman Dutch Law traditions with South Africa and the rule stare decisis is embedded in our legal system. In my view Article 81 and section 17 complement each other, section 17 providing for the finality of the decisions of this Court and Article 81 providing for their binding nature on inferior courts and all persons. It does not create another forum for litigants to litigate beyond the decisions of this Court. It is regrettable that applicants think that Article 81 empowers them to approach this Court to revisit its decisions; when it is settled law that the decisions of this Court are final."
MLS Price at posting:
3.2¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
