Court order declaring Proclamation R27 of 2006 (issued by President Thabo Mbeki (the first respondent) in terms of section 13 of the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act, and purporting to bring into operation sections 4, 6, 10, 11 and 12 of the Amendment Act, with effect from 31 July 2006) to be "null and void and of no force and effect." Because of the alleged uncertainty created by the High Court's declaration of invalidity, the Road Accident Fund (the third respondent) sought direct access to the CC for an order declaring Proclamation R32 of 2006, issued by the President in substitution for the first proclamation, before 31 July 2006, to have brought lawfully into operation sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Amendment Act with effect from 31 July 2006. The second proclamation had been issued to correct a bona fide error in the first proclamation regarding which of the sections in the Amendment Act were to come into operation on 31 July, and was worded as "amending" the first proclamation. The first and second respondents objected in limine that the applicant had no locus standi to bring the application. Judgment As to the applicant's standing to bring the application, the court held that, although he might not have had standing at common law, the present case called for an expanded understanding of what constituted a "direct and personal interest." If the practitioner was able to establish both that a proclamation was of direct and central importance to the field in which he or she operated; and that it was in the interests of the administration of justice that the validity of that proclamation be determined by a court, then he or she could approach a court to challenge the validity of the proclamation. In the present case, the court found, the applicant met both requirements and accordingly had standing to pursue the application. As to the application for direct access, the court found that it had a discretion on whether or not to grant direct access, but it would only do so in exceptional cases and when it was in the interests of justice in the light of the facts of the particular case. The circumstances in the application for direct access were indeed, in the present case, exceptional. It was in the interests of justice, too, that the validity of the two proclamations be considered together.