Synopsis:
The Court discharged a provisional costs order directing the employees (first and second respondent) and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (Minister) to each pay her costs in the Constitutional Court. The Court was satisfied that the provisional costs order should be discharged in relation to the employees as this matter concerned the constitutionality of arrest tanquam suspectus de fuga, which was between the applicant and the Minister and not between the applicant and the employees. As a result, the Minister was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs in this Court.
