. p.C!il_'.~. 1/ 'I 'i.<.. AC HPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Hurrian Rights our Collective Responsibility 42. In light of this, the Respondent State submits that the Complainant could not successfully appeal against the Order in terms of Section 17(1) of the Superior Court Act, No. 10 of 2013. However, the Respondent State notes that the Complainant still had the option to set the matter down again for hearing , but with stricter compliance with the rules and procedures of the South African courts. 15 If this avenue had failed , he still had the option to appeal a decision on the merits to the Supreme Court of Appeal or the Full Bench of the High Court and, subsequently, the Constitutional Court, if the appeal had been rendered unsuccessful. 43 . The Respondent State further argues that the Complainant had the prerogative to enroll his application on the normal court roll in terms of the practice manual of the Polokwane High Court and set his matter down for hearings as the merits were not yet determined.16 44. The Respondent State submits that in addition to the Complainant having the option to set the matter on the normal court roll , the South Africa Uniform Rules of Court grant a Respondent in a motion proceeding to enroll a matter for hearing on the Roll if the Applicant in a matter fails to apply for the date, before approaching the Constitutional Court on an urgent basis to set aside the order handed down by Polokwane High Court.17 15 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibility, Para 31; The Respondent St Johannes Jacobus Roets NO and Another v SB Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd and [2022] ZAGPJHC 720 (6 October 2022) wherein the court held that if a matter is urgency, an applicant can simply set the matter down again on proper notice in rules. ' 16 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibility, para 33. : 17 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibility, para 34-36. ' cf, €