Page:NCGLE v Minister of Home Affairs.djvu/5

This page has been validated.

Ackermann J


inconsistency;
6 Directing the First Respondent to extend the exemptions already granted to the Seventh Applicant in terms of section 28(2) of the Aliens Control Act, Act 96 of 1991 as amended, pending any amendment to the Aliens Control Act to comply with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, Act 108 of 1996;
7 Directing the First Respondent to grant to the Second to Sixth Applicants exemptions in terms of section 28(2) of the Aliens Control Act, Act 96 of 1991 as amended, pending any amendment to the Aliens Control Act to comply with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, Act 108 of 1996;
(8) Declaring that the failure of the First Respondent to recognise committed same-sex relationships as a special circumstance in terms of section 28(2) of the Act [is] unconstitutional.
….”

[4]The applicants have appealed to this Court under the provisions of section 172(2)(d) of the Constitution[1] seeking a variation of the order granted by the High Court. They have simultaneously applied for confirmation[2] of the whole order, except those parts against which the appeal is brought and “those parts of the order, if any, which are not subject to confirmation by this court in terms of sections 167(5) and 172(2) of the Constitution.” The respondents then appealed against the entire judgment and order of the High Court.


  1. Read with section 8(1)(b) of the Constitutional Court Complementary Act 13 of 1995 ( the “CCC Act”) and Rule 15(2) of this Court.
  2. Under the provisions of section 172(2)(d), read with sections 172(2)(a) and 167(5) of the Constitution, and read with section 8(1)(b) of the CCC Act and Rule 15(4).

5