Chief Justice and Others v Law Society (C of A (CIV) 59 of 2011) [2012] LSCA 3 (27 April 2012)

IN THE COUR T OF AP PE AL OF LE S OTH O C OF A (CIV) NO. 5 9 / 2 0 1 1 In t h e m a t ter b etween : 1 S T AP PE LLANT THE CHIE F J US TICE 2 ND AP PE LLANT THE R E GIS TR AR 3 R D AP PE LLANT THE DE P UTY R E GIS TR AR 4 TH AP PE LLANT THE MINIS TE R OF J US TICE THE J UDICIAL SE R VICE COMMIS SION 5 TH AP PE LLANT 6 TH AP PE LLANT THE ATTOR NE Y GE NE R AL a n d THE LAW S OCIE TY OF LE S OTHO R E S P ONDE NT COR AM: S MALBE RGE R, J A S COTT, J A HOWIE , J A HE ARD : 1 9 APRIL 2 0 1 2 DE LIVE RE D: 2 7 APRIL 2 0 1 2 S UMMAR Y High Cou r t – or d in a r y a n d con s t it u t ion a l ju r is d ict ion – High Cou r t Ru les 1 9 8 0 a n d Con s t it u t ion a l Lit iga t ion Ru les 2 0 0 0 a p p lica b le t o t h e ju r is d ict ion r es p ect ively – con s t it u t ion a l is s u e r a is ed – Con s t it u t ion a l Lit iga t ion Ru les t o b e followed – con s equ en ce of fa ilu r e t o d o s o. it s or d in a r y a n d con s t it u t ion a l in voca t ion of J UDGME NT S MALBE R GE R , J A: [1 ] In ter m s of s ection 1 1 9 (1 ) of t h e Con s t itu tion of Les ot h o t h e High Cou r t h a s u n lim ited or igin a l ju r is d iction to h ea r a n d d eter m in e a n y civil a n d cr im in a l p r oceed in gs (wh a t m a y b e ter m e d its “or d in a r y ju r is d iction ”). In a d d ition it h a s “s u ch ju r is d iction a n d p ower s a s m a y b e con fer r ed on it b y t h is Con s titu tion or b y or u n d er a n y ot h er la w.” In t h is r es p ect s ection 2 2 (2 ) of t h e Con s tit u tion con fer s or igin a l ju r is d iction on t h e High Cou r t to h ea r a n d d eter m in e a n y a p p lica tion m a d e b y a n y p er s on wh o a lleges a con tr a ven tion , or a lik ely con tr a ven tion in r ela tion t o h im , of t h e p r ovis ion s of s ection s 4 to 2 1 in clu s ive of t h e Con s tit u tion (wh a t I s h a ll r efer t o a s it s “con s tit u tion a l ju r is d iction ”). Wh ile it is cor r ect t o s a y t h a t Les ot h o h a s n o s p ecia lly d es ign a ted Con s tit u tion a l Cou r t , it a p p ea r s to b e gen er a lly a ccep ted t h a t wh en t h e High Cou r t exer cis e s its con s titu tion a l ju r is d iction it s its a s a Con s t itu tion a l Cou r t (s ee eg MOHAU MAKAMANE v MINIS TRY OF COMMUNICATIONS S CIE NCE AND TE CHNOLOGY C of A (CIV) No.2 7 / 2 0 1 1 (u n r ep or ted ) p a r a 1 ). Th e Con s tit u tion t h er efor e en vis a ges t h e High Cou r t s ittin g a s s u ch in t h e exer cis e of it s or d in a r y ju r is d iction , a n d a s a Con s tit u tion a l Cou r t in t h e exer cis e of it s con s titu tion a l ju r is d iction . [2 ] Th e High Cou r t Ru les 1 9 8 0 , m a d e b y t h e Ch ief J u s tice u n d er s ection 1 6 of t h e High Cou r t Act 1 9 7 8 , r egu la t e a n d p r es cr ib e th e p r oced u r e a n d p r a ctice t o b e followed in t h e High Cou r t in a ll ca u s es or m a tt er s fa llin g wit h in its or d in a r y ju r is d iction . In 2 0 0 0 t h e Ch ief J u s tice, in t h e exer cis e of t h e p ower s con fer r ed u p on h im b y s ection s 2 2 (6 ) a n d 6 9 (5 ) of t h e Con s tit u tion , m a d e a n d p u b lis h ed t h e Con s titu tion a l Litiga tion Ru les 2 0 0 0 wit h r es p ect t o t h e p r a ctice a n d p r oced u r e of t h e High Cou r t in t h e exer cis e of its con s titu tion a l ju r is d iction . In ter m s of t h e in ter p r eta tion p r ovis ion of t h os e r u les (r u le 2 ) “Cou r t m ea n s t h e High Cou r t es t a b lis h ed b y s ection 1 1 9 of t h e Con s tit u tion a n d exer cis in g its ju r is d ict ion u n d er s ection 2 2 of t h e Con s tit u tion .” Sin ce 2 0 0 0 , t h er efor e, t h er e h a ve exis ted two p a r a llel s ets of r u les , on e s et a p p lica b le to m a t ter s in wh ich t h e High Cou r t exer cis es it s or d in a r y ju r is d ict ion , a n d a n ot h er wh er e its con s titu tion a l ju r is d iction is in vok ed . On t h e fa ce of it t h er e is a la cu n a wh ich wou ld n ot a p p ea r t o b e cover ed b y eit h er s et of r u les a n d wh ich m a y n eed t o b e r em ed ied in fu t u r e. Wh a t p r oced u r e is t o b e followed wh en a m a t ter cor r ectly com m en ced in t h e High Cou r t exer cis in g its or d in a r y ju r is d iction is m et wit h a d efen ce wh ich in vok es t h e cou r t’s con s tit u tion a l ju r is d iction ? However , t h is is a m a t ter wh ich n eed n ot con cer n u s in t h e p r es en t a p p ea l. [3 ] In t er m s of s ection 1 2 of t h e High Cou r t Act t h e Ch ief J u s tice “s h a ll r egu la t e t h e d is tr ib u tion of b u s in es s in t h e Cou r t , a n d a ll a ction s a n d p r oceed in gs b efor e t h e Cou r t s h a ll b e h ea r d a n d d eter m in ed b y a s in gle ju d ge, u n les s t h e Ch ief J u s tice ot h er wis e d ir ect s .” Th is wou ld p r es u m a b ly a p p ly wh en t h e High Cou r t is fu n ction in g eit h er u n d er it s or d in a r y ju r is d iction or u n d er its con s t itu tion a l ju r is d iction . [4 ] A p r a ctice a p p ea r s t o h a ve gr own u p , a t lea s t over t h e la s t 1 2 yea r s , t h a t wh er e t h e High Cou r t exer cis es its con s titu tion a l ju r is d iction in a m a t ter wh ich in volves a ch a llen ge to t h e con s titu tion a lity of legis la tion or d elega t ed legis la tion , t h e m a t ter is h ea r d , wh er e p os s ib le, b y a Ben ch com p r is in g t h r ee ju d ges – s ee eg S OLÉ v CULLINAN NO AND OTHE RS LAC (2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 4 ) 5 7 2 ; TŚĒ PĒ v INDE PE NDE NT E LE CTORAL COMMIS SION AND OTHE RS LAC (2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 ) 1 6 9 ; MINIS TE R OF LABOUR AND E MPLOYME NT AND OTHE RS v TŚE UOA LAC (2 0 0 7 -2 0 0 8 ) 2 8 9 ; MAKAMANE ’s ca s e (s u p r a ) a n d , m or e r ecen tly TŚE NOLI NO v THE LE SOTHO RE VE NUE AUTHORITY AND OTHE RS C of A (CIV) 2 5 / 2 0 1 1 . Litiga n ts will t h er efor e h a ve com e t o exp ect th a t s u ch m a tt er s will b e h ea r d b y t h r ee ju d ges of t h e High Cou r t a n d , in t h e even t of t h e m a tt er com in g on a p p ea l t o t h is Cou r t , b y a Fu ll Ben ch of five ju d ges of t h is Cou r t . [5 ] Th is s om ewh a t lon g, b u t n eces s a r y, in t r od u ction b r in gs m e t o t h e p r es en t a p p ea l. On 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 9 t h e Ch ief J u s tice is s u ed t h e High Cou r t (Am en d m en t) Ru les wh ich a m en d ed r u les 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 2 7 a n d 3 6 a n d in s er ted a n ew r u le 6 1 . Th e a m en d m en t p r ovid ed for a wid e r a n ge of u n con t es ted m a t ter s t o b e h ea r d b y a r egis tr a r or d ep u ty-r egis tr a r in s tea d of a ju d ge. Th ey in clu d ed u n op p os ed m otion s , b a il a p p lica tion s , h ea r in g u n op p os ed d ivor ce m a t ter s a n d a r r es tin g s u s p ect s d e fu ga , m a tt er s wh ich u n til t h en h a d b een d ea lt wit h b y a ju d ge. [6 ] On 1 8 Ma r ch 2 0 1 0 t h e r es p on d en t (t h e La w S ociety, a s a p p lica n t) b r ou gh t a n u r gen t a p p lica tion in wh ich it s ou gh t , in ter a lia , t h e followin g r elief a ga in s t t h e a p p ella n ts (r es p on d en ts in t h e cou r t b elow): “2 . [Th a t a r u le] n is i b e is s u ed retu r n a b le on a d a te a n d tim e d eter m in ed b y th e a b ove Hon ou r a b le Cou r t ca llin g u p on res p on d en ts to s h ow ca u s e, if a n y, wh y a n or d er in th e followin g ter m s s h a ll n ot b e m a d e fin a l:- (a ) Th e p u r p or t ed gr a n t in g of a d ju d ica t ive a u t h or it y a n d 3 r d a n d or r es p on d en t s b y t h e Fir s t Res p on d en t s h a ll n ot b e d ecla r ed n u ll a n d void a n d of n o for ce a n d effect . ju d icia l p ower s on t h e 2 n d for ju d ge (b ) Th e High Cou r t (Am en d m en t ) Ru les 2 0 0 9 p u r s u a n t t o wh ich t h e 1 s t Res p on d en t p u r p or t s t o s u b s t it u t e r egis t r a r r es p ect of a d ju d ica t ive fu n ct ion s t o h ea r a n d d et er m in e m a t t er s or ca s es s h a ll n ot b e d ecla r ed m en t ion ed in op er a t ive in a s m u ch a s t h ey a r e u lt r a vir es u n d er s ect ion 1 3 1 (a ) of t h e Con s t it u t ion r ea d wit h S ect ion 5 of t h e High Cou r t Act No. 5 of 1 9 7 8 . t h er eu n d er in (c) Fir s t r es p on d en t s h a ll n ot b e d ecla r ed t o h a ve n o a n d 3 r d d elega t e fu n ct ion s ju d icia l t h e p ower s a n d 2 n d t o t o a u t h or it y a d ju d ica t ive r es p on d en t s . (d ) 2 n d Res p on d en t a n d h er a s s is t a n t s a n d d ep u t ies fr om r es t r a in ed a n d s h a ll n ot b e exer cis in g a n y ju d icia l p ower s a n d a d ju d ica t ive fu n ct ion s a ga in s t ligiga n t s con t r a r y t o S ect ion 1 2 (1 ) a n d (8 ) a n d s ect ion 1 1 8 (2 ) of t h e Con s t it u t ion . in t er d ict ed r es p on d en t (e) An y a lloca t ion of wor k b y t h e fir s t r es p on d en t t o t h e 2 n d t oget h er wit h h er d ep u t y a n d a s s is t a n t s a n d t h eir p er for m a n ce in t er m s of t h e High Cou r t (Am en d m en t ) Ru les 2 0 0 9 s h a ll n ot b e s t a yed p en d in g t h e p r es en t a p p lica t ion . t h e ou t com e of (f) 1 s t Res p on d en t a n d ot h er s s h a ll n ot p a y cos t s h er eof in t h e even t of op p os it ion .” Th e a p p lica tion wa s op p os ed b y t h e a p p ella n t s . [7 ] In b r in gin g its a p p lica tion t h e La w S ociety in vok ed t h e or d in a r y ju r is d iction of t h e High Cou r t a n d p r oceed ed u n d er t h e High Cou r t r u les . Th e m a t ter wa s d u ly a s s ign ed a r efer en ce n u m b er – CIV/ APN/ 1 4 9 / 1 0 – wh ich d es ign a ted it a s b ein g d ea lt wit h in t h a t m a n n er . In its a p p lica t ion t h e La w S ociety com p la in ed , in p a r a gr a p h 5 .2 .9 of it s fou n d in g a ffid a vit d ep os ed t o b y t h e s ecr eta r y of its cou n cil, t h a t “t h e Ch ief J u s tice h a s s u b s titu ted Regis t r a r s a n d As s is t a n t Regis tr a r s for J u d ges in t er m s of t h e High Cou r t Am en d m en t Ru les 2 0 0 9 , t o exer cis e ju d icia l p ower s a n d p er for m a d ju d ica tive fu n ction s con tr a r y to t h e Con s titu tion a l a n d lega l im p er a tives u n d er t h e Con s tit u tion a n d t h e High Cou r t Act 1 9 7 8 ”. Th is p r es a ged a n a tt a ck on t h e con s titu tion a lity of t h e High Cou r t (Am en d m en t ) Ru les . Th e p u r p os e of t h e a p p lica tion wa s clea r ly t o s tr ik e d own s u b or d in a te legis la tion a s b ein g con tr a r y t o t h e Con s tit u tio n . [8 ] In p a r a gr a p h 6 .1 of h er a n s wer in g a ffid a vit t h e Regis tr a r of t h e High Cou r t , Mr s . M. P. Sek oa i (t h e s econ d a p p ella n t) r a is ed t h e is s u e of ju r is d iction in t h e followin g t er m s : “6 .1 I d en y th a t th e High Cou r t in its or igin a l ju r is d iction ca n h ea r th is m a tter . Th e d is p u te rela tes to th e in ter p reta tion of th e Con s titu tion a n d a lleged con flict b etween th e Con s titu tion a n d th e a m en d ed High Cou r t Ru les . Th e on ly Cou r t wh ich h a s ju r is d iction to h ea r it is th e Con s titu tion a l Cou r t .” Th e La w Societ y’s r es p on s e t o t h a t, in p a r a gr a p h 3 .1 of its r ep lyin g a ffid a vit , wa s t o d en y: “th a t th ere is a Con s titu tion a l Cou r t in Les oth o; th e cor rect p os ition is th a t th e Con s titu tion con fer s th e ju r is d iction to in ter p ret a n d en force its p r ovis ion s on th e High Cou r t. Con s equ en tly, th e High Cou r t ca n d ea l with th is m a tter in its con s titu tion a l ju r is d iction ”. As t h is ju d gm en t is con cer n ed on ly wit h wh a t m a y b e ter m ed t h e ju r is d iction is s u e t h er e is n o n eed to tr a ver s e t h e con t en tion s a n d cou n ter -con t en tion s in t h e va r iou s a ffid a vits r ela tin g to t h e m er it s of t h e La w S ociety’s a p p lica tion . [9 ] Th e m a t ter ca m e b efor e Mon a p a t h i J . It is com m on ca u s e t h a t t h e is s u e of ju r is d iction , a n d wh et h er t h e a p p lica tion s h ou ld b e h ea r d b y a p a n el of t h r ee ju d ges , wa s s p ecifica lly r a is ed a n d a r gu ed . It is a ls o com m on ca u s e t h a t h e wa s r efer r ed t o t h e r em a r k s o f Nom n gcon go J in t h e ca s e of MAMATE TE MORIE NYANE v NQOS A MORIE NYANE a n d OTHE RS CIV/ APN/ 2 0 4 / 2 0 0 3 (u n r ep or t ed ), ju d gm en t d eliver ed on 2 J u ly 2 0 0 4 . Th a t ca s e in volved a ch a llen ge to t h e con s titu tion a lit y of s ection 3 (b ) of t h e Ad m in is tr a tion of E s ta tes Pr ocla m a tion 1 9 of 1 9 3 5 . In t h e cou r s e of h is ju d gm en t t h e lea r n ed ju d ge r em a r k ed (a t p a ge 9 ): “Now I h a ve to a d ver t to a n oth er a s p ect wh ich wa s n ot s p ecifica lly r a is ed n or wa s a rgu ed b efore m e a n d th a t is th e p r oced u re a d op ted in m a k in g th is con s titu tion a l ch a llen ge to th e la w. I con s id er th is im p or ta n t en ou gh to exp res s m y views on it, in s p ite of th e view I ta k e of th is ca s e wh ich will s oon b e a p p a ren t.” After r efer r in g t o va r iou s p r ovis ion s of t h e Con s titu tion a n d t h e a d ven t of t h e Con s tit u tion a l Litiga tion Ru les , Nom n gcon go J wen t on to exp r es s t h e followin g views : “Th u s th e cou r t s ittin g in its con s titu tion a l ju r is d iction s h ou ld b e d is tin gu is h ed fr om th e cou r t s ittin g in its or d in a r y civil or cr im in a l ju r is d iction . In th a t ju r is d iction its p r oced u re a n d p r a ctice is gover n ed b y s ep a r a te r u les . It is th erefore n ot p r op er in m y view to lu m p togeth er in on e a p p lica tion con s titu tion a l a s well a s ord in a ry red res s . It m a y well b e th a t it wou ld b e con ven ien t to a r gu e th e two togeth er wh ere for in s ta n ce on e relief d ep en d s on th e oth er , b u t th a t is a m a tter of th e d irection of th e cou r t h ea r in g th e m a tter in its p r op er ju r is d iction u n d er th e releva n t r u les . It wou ld s eem th erefore th a t th e con s titu tion a l ch a llen ge is n ot p r op er ly b efore m e – th is cou rt s ittin g a s it is , in its or d in a ry civil ju r is d iction . ” [1 0 ] Mon a p a t h i J h ea r d fu ll a r gu m en t in r ela tion t o b ot h t h e ju r is d iction is s u e a n d th e m er it s . On 2 9 Sep tem b er 2 0 1 1 h e d eliver ed a n or a l r u lin g a n d gr a n ted t h e La w S ociety’s a p p lica tion wit h cos t s . Accor d in g t o t h e n ote t a k en d own b y t h e a p p ella n t s a t t h e tim e of t h e r u lin g (t h e a ccu r a cy of wh ich is n ot in d is p u te) t h e lea r n ed ju d ge s a id , in t er a lia , t h e followin g: “Th e Cou r t fin d s th a t th is Cou r t s ittin g a s a on e - m a n Cou r t h a s ju r is d iction – m ea n in g th a t it is n ot n eces s a ry for th is Cou r t to b e com p eten t to h a ve b een es ta b lis h ed a s a p a n el of m ore th a n on e J u d ge in ter m s of th e Con s titu tion a l Cou r t Ru les .” Mon a p a t h i J ’s fu ll wr it ten ju d gm en t wa s d eliver ed on 1 3 Ma r ch 2 0 1 2 . A s tr ik in g om is s ion fr om t h e ju d gm en t is a n y r efer en ce t o t h e is s u e of ju r is d iction a r gu ed b efor e h im . [1 1 ] Th e a p p ea l b efor e u s b y t h e a p p ella n ts is a ga in s t t h e or d er m a d e b y Mon a p a t h i J in fa vou r of t h e La w S ociety. We r equ es t ed t h a t t h e p a r ties a d d r es s u s on t h e ju r is d iction is s u e fir s t a ft er wh ich we wou ld d eter m in e t h e fu r t h er cou r s e of t h e a p p ea l. We p r oceed ed t o h ea r fu ll a r gu m en t on t h e qu es tion of ju r is d iction . We t h en r es er ved ju d gm en t. We in tim a ted t h a t if we wer e to u p h old t h e a p p ella n ts ’ a r gu m en t on ju r is d iction we wou ld a llow t h e a p p ea l a n d m a k e a n a p p r op r ia te or d er a s to cos ts ; if we wer e to d is m is s t h e a p p ella n ts ’ a r gu m en t on ju r is d iction , we in ten d ed , b eca u s e of t h e im p or ta n ce of t h e m a t ter , t o r efer t h e a p p ea l on t h e m er its t o a Fu ll Ben ch of t h is Cou r t com p r is in g five ju d ges . Th e p a r ties in tim a ted t h eir a gr eem en t wit h s u ch cou r s e b ein g a d op t ed . [1 2 ] Th e ch a llen ge d ir ected b y t h e La w Society a ga in s t t h e con s titu tion a l va lid ity of t h e High Cou r t (Am en d m en t) Ru les r a is es im p or ta n t qu es tion s r ela tin g to t h e exer cis e of t h e Ch ief J u s tice’s p ower t o m a k e r u les , t h e p r op er a d m in is tr a t ion of ju s tice in ter m s of t h e Con s tit u tion a n d cer t a in a s p ects of t h e r igh t s of litiga n ts a n d a ccu s ed p er s on s . Its locu s s t a n d i t o b r in g t h e a p p lica tion it d id is n ot in is s u e. On e of t h e com p la in ts m a d e b y t h e La w S ociety (s ee p a r a gr a p h 9 (1 ) (f) of t h e fou n d in g a ffid a vit) is t h a t t h e a m en d ed r u les a r e con t r a r y to t h e Con s tit u tion in t h a t b y s u b s tit u tin g r egis tr a r s for ju d ges t o p er for m wh a t a r e a lleged t o b e ju d icia l fu n ction s in t h e High Cou r t t h e r igh t s of litiga n ts a r e in fr in ged “to h a ve a cces s to a la wfu lly con s t itu ted , com p eten t a n d a p p r op r ia tely qu a lified a d ju d ica tin g a u t h or it y a s p r ovid ed for b y t h e Con s tit u tion in ter m s of s ection 1 2 (1 ) a n d (8 ) r ea d wit h S ection 1 2 0 ”. [1 3 ] By in vok in g s ection 1 2 (1 ) a n d (8 ) of t h e Con s titu tion t h e p r ovis ion s of s ection 2 2 (1 ) of t h e Con s t itu tion a r e b r ou gh t in t o p la y. By its own a ccou n t t h e La w S ociety is s eek in g r ed r es s in t h e High Cou r t in t h e exer cis e of its con s tit u tion a l ju r is d iction . Th a t b ein g t h e ca s e t h e La w S ociety, in b r in gin g its a p p lica tion , wa s ob liged t o com p ly wit h t h e Con s tit u tion a l Litiga tion Ru les (t h e va lid ity of wh ich h a s n ot b een ch a llen ged ). Th a t it fa iled t o d o. In s t ea d it followed t h e Ru les of Cou r t a p p lica b le t o t h e High Cou r t exer cis in g its or d in a r y ju r is d iction . As Nom n gcon go J p oin ted ou t in MORIE NYANE ’s ca s e (s u p r a ), in m y view cor r ectly, a con s titu tion a l ch a llen ge ca n n ot p r op er ly b e b r ou gh t b efor e a ju d ge exer cis in g h is or d in a r y ju r is d iction , wh ich is wh a t h a p p en ed in t h e p r es en t in s t a n ce. Mon a p a t h i J s h ou ld t h er efor e h a ve u p h eld t h e a p p ella n ts ’ ob jection t o t h e m a t ter p r oceed in g b efor e h im u n d er h is or d in a r y ju r is d iction . [1 4 ] Th e ob jection is n ot a p u r ely tech n ica l on e. Wh er e d iffer en t r u les r egu la te d iffer en t p r oced u r es it is in cu m b en t u p on a litiga n t t o follow t h e cor r ect p r oced u r e. Wer e t h a t n ot s o t h e Con s titu tion a l Litiga tion Ru les m igh t b ecom e r ed u n d a n t. Th e in voca tion of t h es e r u les , a n d t h e a lloca t ion of a n u m b er b y t h e r egis tr a r d es ign a tin g t h e m a t ter a s on e r a is in g a con s tit u tion a l is s u e, will a ler t wh oever is r es p on s ib le for a r r a n gin g t h e r oll t h a t t h e m a t ter is on e wh ich m a y r equ ir e a com p lem en t of t h r ee ju d ges , a n d p r es u m a b ly t h e Ch ief J u s tice wou ld b e a d vis ed a ccor d in gly. If t h e p r op er r ou t e h a d b een followed in t h e p r es en t in s ta n ce t h en , given t h e im p or ta n ce of t h e is s u es r a is ed in t h e a p p lica tion a n d t h e fa ct t h a t it in volved a ch a llen ge t o t h e con s tit u tion a lity of s u b or d in a te legis la tion in volvin g t h e d eter m in a tion of m a t ter s in t h e High Cou r t , it is a m a t ter of h igh p r ob a b ility t h a t t h e h ea r in g of t h e a p p lica t ion wou ld h a ve b een s et d own b efor e a t h r ee-ju d ge p a n el, p a r ticu la r ly h a vin g r ega r d t o wh a t a p p ea r s t o b e t h e es t a b lis h ed p r a ctice in s u ch m a t ter s . Con s equ en tly t h e a p p ella n ts h a ve b een d en ied a h ea r in g b efor e t h r ee ju d ges in t h e High Cou r t exer cis in g its con s titu tion a l ju r is d iction to wh ich t h ey wer e en titled . In a ll t h e cir cu m s t a n ces it is s om ewh a t s u r p r is in g, t o s a y t h e lea s t, t h a t Mon a p a t h i J wa s p r ep a r ed t o h ea r t h e m a t ter a s a s in gle ju d ge exer cis in g h is or d in a r y ju r is d iction . [1 5 ] In m y view t h e a p p ea l m u s t s u cceed on t h e ju r is d iction is s u e. Th e m a t ter will h a ve t o com m en ce d e n ovo in t h e High Cou r t , exer cis in g con s t itu tion a l ju r is d iction , in a ccor d a n ce wit h t h e Con s titu tion a l Litiga tion Ru les . Th e m a t ter s h ou ld b e h ea r d b y t h r ee ju d ges . [1 6 ] Th er e r em a in s t h e is s u e of cos ts . Th e a p p ella n ts h a ve a s k ed for cos t s on t h e b a s is t h a t t h e La w S ociety followed t h e wr on g p r oced u r e a n d th er ea ft er s t u b b or n ly p er s is t ed in its d en ia l t h a t it h a d d on e s o. Cou n s el for t h e La w S ociet y in tim a t ed t h a t if t h e a p p ella n ts wer e u n s u cces s fu l on t h e ju r is d iction is s u e, t h e La w S ociet y wou ld n ot a s k for t h e cos ts of t h e a p p ea l h ea r in g on 1 9 Ap r il 2 0 1 2 , t h is d es p ite t h e fa ct t h a t it r equ es t ed , a n d wa s gr a n ted , cos t s in th e cou r t b elow. Th is Cou r t is in p r in cip le r elu ct a n t t o m a k e or s u s ta in cos ts or d er s in con s tit u tion a l m a t t er s wh er e la r ge is s u es of con s titu tion a l im p or ta n ce a r e a t s ta k e, or wh er e t h er e h a s b een a s u b s t a n tia l con s titu tion a l ch a llen ge of a p u b lic n a tu r e. Th a t p r in cip le r ela tes ch iefly t o a p olicy con cer n to a void s tiflin g litiga tion of p u b lic im p or ta n ce (s ee t h e r em a r k s of Ga u n tlett J A in MINIS TE R OF LABOUR AND E MPLOYME NT AND OTHE RS v TŚ E UOA (s u p r a ) a t 3 0 2 H a n d TŚĒ PĒ v INDE PE NDE NT E LE CTORAL COMMIS SION AND OTHE RS (s u p r a ) a t 1 8 8 E ). [1 7 ] Ap a r t fr om followin g t h e wr on g p r oced u r e th er e is n ot h in g t h a t ca lls for cen s u r e of t h e La w S ociety’s con d u ct . In m a t ter s s u ch a s t h is t h e La w S ociety, t o its cr ed it , a cts a s a wa t ch d og r ep r es en tin g t h e in ter es ts of litiga n ts a n d s ociety in gen er a l to en s u r e t h a t t h e p r ovis ion s of t h e Con s titu tion a r e u p h eld . It m u s t n ot b e d is cou r a ged fr om d oin g s o in a p p r op r ia t e ca s es . In t h e cir cu m s ta n ces t h er e s h ou ld b e n o or d er a s t o cos t s . [1 8 ] Th e followin g or d er is m a d e: 1 ) Th e a p p ea l is a llowed a n d t h e or d er of t h e cou r t a qu o is a lter ed t o r ea d : 2 ) 3 ) “Th e a p p lic a t io n is d is m is s e d . Th e r e will be n o o r d e r a s t o c o s t s .” Th er e will b e n o or d er a s t o cos ts in r es p ect of t h e a p p ea l h ea r in g on 1 9 Ap r il 2 0 1 2 . Th e a p p lica tion is to b e com m en ced d e n ovo b efor e its con s titu tion a l ju r is d iction in ter m s of t h e Con s tit u tion a l Litiga tion Ru les 2 0 0 0 . t h e High Cou r t exer cis in g 4 ) 5 ) or , s h ou ld h e excu s e Th e Ch ief J u s tice h im s elf fr om a lloca tin g t h e ca s e, t h e p u is n e J u d ge of t h e High Cou r t t a s k ed wit h t h a t fu n ction , is r equ es ted t o a lloca te t h r ee ju d ges to h ea r t h e a p p lica tion . t h e Th e Regis tr a r a p p lica tion is d u e for h ea r in g, to a ffor d it p r ior ity on t h e r oll of ca s e s . r equ es t ed , wh en is I a gr ee: I a gr ee: __________________________ J . W. S MALBE R GE R J US TICE OF APPE AL _________________________ D. G. S COTT J US TICE OF APPE AL _______________________ C. T. H OWIE J US TICE OF APPE AL For t h e a p p ella n ts : For t h e r es p on d en t: Ad v H. P. Viljoen SC Ad v S . P. Sa k oa n e a n d Ad v Z. Md a