A to Proclamation 35 of 1995 had to be dismissed. The Court accordingly held that, because it was unanimous that the rates levied by the second respondent were lawful, the attack made on them by the appellants had to be dismissed. As the Court was evenly divided on the lawfulness of the contributions levied by the first respondent on the second and third respondents, the appeal on those issues was not successful and had to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal as a whole had to be dismissed. Having regard to item 17 of Schedule 6 to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996, it is in the interests of justice that in respect of constitutional issues under the interim Constitution which may in future come before it, the SCA, as the successor of the Appellate Division, should exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it over constitutional matters by Chapter 8 of the 1996 Constitution. Its exercise of that jurisdiction, however, will not affect the principle articulated in S v Mhlungu and Du Plessis v De Klerk in terms of which the constitutionality of an act is to be determined by the substantive provisions applicable at the time. The decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division, in Fedsure Life Assurance v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council, was thus confirmed. See also Constitutional law Constitution of South Africa Law of South Africa Local government References Case law Du Plessis and Others v De Klerk and Another 1996 (3) SA 850 (CC). Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and Others 1997 (5) BCLR 657 (W), Witwatersrand Local Division S v Mhlungu and Others 1995 (3) SA 867 (CC). Legislation Local Government Transition Act 209 of 1993. Notes Constitutional Court of South Africa cases 1998 in South African law 1998 in case law