5 HH 29-2007 HC 1786/06 We make the final point that it is clear from the High Court judgment of the 8th February 2006 that the High Court accepted that it was not only the Chairperson of the Commission who was disabled from further sitting to consider this matter but the rest of the Commissioners as well. The Commission was advised by the court to take this fact into account in further dealing with this matter.” (the underlining is mine) A copy of this letter was delivered to the Minister. On 16 February 2006 the Commission responded through a standard letter in which receipt of the letter was acknowledged and an assurance given that the contents thereof would be attended to in due course. Undeterred, the applicant‟s legal practitioners decided to address the Minister on the issue and on 22 February 2006 a suitable letter was written to the same referring to the judgment of this court. A copy of the response received from the Commission was also sent as an attachment to that letter. The applicant‟s legal practitioners requested the Minister to ensure that Commissioners were put in place to deal with the matter bearing in mind the findings of MAKARAU J (as she then was). A copy of the judgment was also attached to the letter. An indication was made in the letter that it was not the intention of the applicant to engage in further litigation on the issue. The Commission was finally awoken from slumber and on 3 March 2006 it decided to respond substantively to the letter of 13 February 2006 in the following terms: “Reference is made to your letter dated the 13th February of 2006 and the judgment by the Honourable Justice MAKARAU dated the 8th of February 2006. As you rightly pointed out, the Chairperson and all the present Commissioners are disabled from handling the same application. As such we write to advise that the Commissioners are unable to consider the ANZ‟s application for registration as is apparent in the court order.”(emphasis is mine) The letter was signed by Tafataona P Mahoso, the Executive Chairman to the Commission. Concerned at the clearly expressed disinclination on the part of the Chairman to act in terms of the judgment, the applicant‟s legal practitioners on 10 March addressed a suitable letter to the Minister. I will not reproduce it, but the gist of the letter was to request the Minister, in view of the attitude taken by the Commission, to appoint new Commissioners to deal with the matter in compliance with AIPPA. A copy of the letter from the Chairman to the Commission was annexed to the correspondence. Needless to state the letter did not have the desired effect in that it did not elicit any response. The applicant has as a consequence approached this court for appropriate relief. The Chairman of the Commission in an affidavit deposed to by him in opposing the application, admits that the judgment of MAKARAU J, as she then was, found that all the current 5