Makhanya v University of Zululand - LexisNexis South Africa

33what constitutes the ratio of a case. Schreiner JA subsequently repeated that,perhaps more succinctly, in Fellner v Minister of the Interior, 41 when he saidthe following:‘The decision or judgment, in the sense of the Court’s order, by itself only operates ofcourse, between the parties themselves: it can only state law in so far as it discloses arule’.[82] I mentioned earlier that the most striking feature of Chirwa is that itstwo findings, in so far as they purport to express the rule upon which theorder was founded, are mutually destructive. For the court was sitting onappeal in that case from a decision of the high court and its power on appealnecessarily replicated that of the high court. There is nothing in Chirwa tosuggest that the court invoked anything but its powers on appeal in reachingits conclusions.[83] The high court, once having found that it had no jurisdiction, as themajority found, would not have been capable, by its own decision, ofmaking any further orders in the matter. The only course open to it wouldhave been to dismiss the claim, on the ground that it lacked the power tomake any further orders. It would not have been capable of decidingauthoritatively that Ms Chirwa had no cause of action and dismissing herclaim on that ground. Yet the majority (excluding Skweyiya J) went on tomake a finding on that issue, which purported to have been at least one ofthe grounds on which the claim was dismissed.411954 (4) SA 523 (A) at 542D-E.