9 Judgment No. CCZ 3/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 15/18 In respect of all the constitutional matters over which the Court has concurrent or appellate jurisdiction the provisions of s 167(5) (a) and (b) of the Constitution make it clear that the question whether direct access to the Court is to be had with leave or without such leave is to be determined by the Rules. The purpose of requiring the Rules to prescribe the circumstances in which an application for leave for direct access to the Court is necessary is to ensure that the Court plays its role of supervising the maintenance of the constitutional order. The Constitution delegated the power of setting the conditions for direct access to the Court (in matters over which the Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction) to the makers of the Rules. A litigant cannot rely on s 167(5) of the Constitution and ignore the Rules which give effect to the Constitution. It is the provisions of the Rules that litigants have to comply with. It was not for the officials of the applicants to decide whether or not to seek leave for direct access to the Court. There is no rule that authorises a litigant seeking the kind of relief sought by the applicants on the grounds stated to approach the Court directly without leave. The Rules set out the objective factors a litigant has to state in a chamber application for direct access for consideration by the Court or Judge in the determination of the question whether it is in the interests of justice to grant direct access. There must be filed with the registrar, and served on all parties with direct or substantial interest in the relief claimed, an application setting out the grounds on which it is claimed it is in the interests of justice that direct access be granted. Absent the grounds on which it is claimed that it is in the interests of justice that direct access be granted, the Court or Judge has no basis on which to decide whether or not to grant direct access. A finding has to be made by the Court or Judge of the existence of the interests of justice requiring that a decision that direct access be granted be made. Direct access to the