11 Judgment No. CCZ 3/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 15/18 “(3) An application in terms of subrule (2) shall be filed with the Registrar and served on all parties with a direct or substantial interest in the relief claimed and shall set out – (a) the grounds on which it is contended that it is in the interests of justice that an order for direct access be granted; and (b) the nature of the relief sought and the grounds upon which such relief is based; and (c) whether the matter can be dealt with by the Court without the hearing of oral evidence or, if it cannot, how such evidence should be adduced and any conflict of facts resolved.” Further, in elaborating r 21(3)(a), r 21(8) of the Rules provides as follows: “(8) In determining whether or not it is in the interest of justice for a matter to be brought directly to the Court, the Court or Judge may, in addition to any other relevant consideration, take the following into account (a) the prospects of success if direct access is granted; (b) whether the applicant has any other remedy available to him or her; and (c) whether there are disputes of fact in the matter.” All these requirements are punctuated by s 167(5) of the Constitution, which requires that the Rules must provide that direct access to the Court ought to be availed where it is in the interests of justice to do so. What must always be borne in mind by the Court or Judge deciding the issue of direct access is the fact that the Court occupies a special position in the scheme for the protection of the constitutional order. It is the only court whose jurisdiction is specifically limited to hearing and determining constitutional matters only or issues connected with decisions on constitutional matters. These are ordinarily matters that require consideration of issues of law relating to the interpretation, protection or enforcement of constitutional provisions. The interests of justice are the overriding consideration.