Judgment No. CCZ 8/15 3 Civil Application No. CCZ 62/15 applicants’ constitutional right in terms of s 56(1) of the Constitution1 only became apparent after the judgment was handed down. In these circumstances, so it was submitted, the applicants could approach this Court directly on appeal. [5] He further submitted, although this was denied by Mr Chagonda, for the respondent, that in his heads of argument before the Supreme Court, the constitutional issue based on a possible violation of s 56(1) of the Constitution was raised. In answer to the question as to why he had not proceeded in terms of s 175 (4) which allows him to request a referral of the issue to the Constitutional Court, he replied that s 175 (4) was not the only way of approaching the Constitutional Court and that since the violation was only apparent after the judgment was delivered, the applicants were entitled in terms of s 167(5) (b) to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court. As authority for this proposition he referred to the following South African cases: NEHAWU V UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN & ORS 2002(4) BLLR 311 (LAC); Z.SIDUMO & ANOR V RUSTENBERG PLATINUM MINES LTD 2007 ZACC 22; NATIONAL UNION OF METAL WORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA V BADER BOP (PTY) LTD 2003 (3) SA 513 CC. The first and last cases referred to are judgments in applications for leave to appeal which leave was granted and both appeals allowed. The second was in respect of an application to the Constitutional Court of South Africa. None of the judgments are of assistance in determining whether the applicants in casu have established a right of appeal to the Constitutional Court from a judgment of the Supreme Court. URGENCY 1 56 Equality and non-discrimination (1) All persons are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law