Security Officers Act, 1987 (Act 92 of 1987) is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid;
(j) an order invalidating any act performed after 27 April 1994 under authority of the inclusion of sodomy as an item in the Schedule to the Security Officers Act (Act 92 of 1987); (k) an order granting the Applicants further and/or alternative relief; (l) only if this application should be opposed, an order directing the Respondent or Respondents so opposing to pay the First Applicant’s costs.”
[5]The second and third respondents at no stage opposed the application. The first respondent initially opposed the application on very limited grounds. When, however, the applicants withdrew their prayers (h) and (j) above, before the hearing in the High Court commenced, the first respondent withdrew such opposition and consequently no order for costs was sought by the applicants. At a later stage of the High Court proceedings, the applicants abandoned the relief sought in prayers (b) and (d). Without abandoning the relief sought in prayer (f), the applicants did not pursue such relief in the High Court because they were of the view that only the Constitutional Court had jurisdiction to grant relief having the generalised effect of this prayer. These matters are alluded to because of the difficulties arising from the orders sought from this Court, which will be dealt with later in this judgment.
[6]The second and third respondents were not represented at the hearing before this
