Judgment No. CCZ 7/2014 7 Const. Application No. 41/2014 Not only was the decision in Satchwell supra based on the construction of s 167(6)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 which has the same wording as s 167(5)(a) of our Constitution, it was arrived at in the light of s 38 which lists persons with the right to approach “a competent court” alleging infringement of a fundamental right or freedom in the same manner as s 85(1) of the Constitution. The fact that s 167(1)(a) of the Constitution defines the Constitutional Court as “the highest court in all constitutional matters” may suggest that its competence is to ensure the uniform application of law and equal justice to all on constitutional matters and should exceptionally decide the matter as a court of first instance. Whatever, the merits or demerits of Mr Sakhe’s argument there is no doubt that it raises an important constitutional question. It is a matter for determination by the full bench of the Constitutional Court. As a judge sitting in chambers, I have no competence to make a pronouncement on the matter. It is after all a constitutional matter. I now turn to decide the first question. It is important to mention that the purpose of these proceedings is not to determine the correctness or otherwise of the tax assessments made by the respondent. That is the question to be determined by the Fiscal Appeal Court in the appeal lodged by the applicant. On the question before this Court, the decision is that a case has not been made for the granting of the relief sought. The reasons for the decision follow: