Page:NCGLE v Minister of Home Affairs.djvu/8

This page has been validated.

Ackermann J


Court a quo;
2. Granting the [respondents] leave to file their Answering Affidavit together with the annexures thereto;
3. Alternatively to prayer 2 above, remitting the matter to the Court a quo for rehearing of the application;
….”

If the relief sought in paragraph 2 of the above notice of motion were to be granted, their founding affidavit in the application in this Court would stand as answering affidavit in the High Court application. The respondents did not attempt to make out a case, nor argue, for the reception of the founding affidavit as new evidence on appeal,[1] or as


  1. Constitutional Court Rule 29 read with section 22(1) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959.

8