[11]The Starke sisters cite Rule 8 of this Court’s Rules which deals with the intervention of parties in proceedings, providing that –
“(1) Any person entitled to join as a party or liable to be joined as a party in the proceedings may, on notice to all parties, at any stage of the proceedings apply for leave to intervene as a party.”
They acknowledge that Rule 12 of the Uniform Rules of the High Court is not expressly listed in Constitutional Court Rule 29 as one of the Uniform Rules which apply to the proceedings in this Court. They submit, however, that the considerations applicable to Uniform Rule 12 as developed by the courts should be followed by this Court in construing Constitutional Court Rule 8 and the effect thereof.[1] This being so, the decisive criterion for a court in exercising its discretion whether or not to grant leave to intervene is whether the applicant for intervention has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation.[2]
[12] As was pointed out on behalf of Mr Bell, the considerations applicable to Uniform Rule 12 are not necessarily wholly appropriate to a case involving an order of constitutional invalidity of a statute in terms of section 172 of the Constitution. The common law principles relating to intervention of parties applied by the courts in respect of Uniform Rule 12 deal primarily with disputes in personam, whereas an
- ↑ See in this regard Erasmus Superior Court Practice (Service 22, 2004) C4-16, commenting on CC Rule 8.
- ↑ See for example United Watch & Diamond Co (Pty) Ltd and Others v Disa Hotels Ltd and Another 1972 (4) SA 409 (C) at 415C–416C.
8
