Judgment No. CCZ 14/201616 Const. Application No. CCZ 67/13 business of a court to grant relief to an applicant wh$se fundamental rights or freedoms have not been violated. He or she would be an uninjured applicant. A court does not grant relief to an uninjured applicant. A relief that does not contain a de~laration of a finding of infringement of a fundamental right or freedom and ipso facto constitutional invalidity of the conduct or legislation under attack has no legal justification. The substanCe of the relief sought by the applicant is the exhortation by the court to the respondents to discharge their constitutional obligation to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the applicant's fundamental rights and freedom. It is not the duty of a court to remind other duty-bearers to observe their duties in the absence of proven infringement of a fundamental human right or freedom. The court has proceeded to examme the matter further on the basis of the principle that an application falls or stands on the founding affidavit and that "appropriate relief' under s 85(1) of the Constitution gives a court wide discretionary power to grant relief that is different from that claimed. The determination of appropriate relief calls for the balancing of various interests that might be affected by the remedy. The balancing must at least be guided by the objective, first to address the wrong occasioned by the infringement of the constitutional right, secondly to deter future violations, third to make an order that can be complied with and fourth achieve the objective of fairness to all who :might be affected by the relief. The nature of the infringement will invariably provide guidance as to the appropriate relief.