Page:NCGLE v Minister of Home Affairs.djvu/9

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.

Ackermann J

material falling under Constitutional Court Rule 30(1).[1]

[9]Secondly, and in the alternative to the above, they applied for an amendment of their notice of appeal in order to introduce a further ground of appeal, namely, that the High Court “in exercising its discretion erred in rejecting the [respondents’] application for postponement.” The effect of this would be to set aside the orders made by the High Court and to have the matter remitted to the High Court, either to reconsider the application for the filing of an answering affidavit or to reconsider the application in the light of the respondents’ answering affidavit. Although there is a brief passing reference to the former application in the respondents’ written

  1. Rule 30(1) provides:

    “Any party to any proceedings before the Court and an amicus curiae properly admitted by the Court in any proceedings shall be entitled, in documents lodged with the registrar in terms of these rules, to canvass factual material which is relevant to the determination of the issues before the Court and which do not specifically appear on the record: Provided that such facts―

    (a) are common cause or otherwise incontrovertible; or,
    (b) are of an official, scientific, technical or statistical nature capable of easy verification.”