ACHPR ., African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Hurnan Rights our Collect ive Responsibility behalf.46 Further, that this is an age-observed rule which is said to have originated from as far back as the 17th century. What is clear for the Commission is that this is a general legal standard which is in the Respondent State's Statute Book and forms part of practice. This legal configuration of right of appearance for companies is well within the margin of appreciation of the Respondent State as a sovereign. The only question left to be answered in considering whether the court did not act impartially in applying this rule in HC 31884/ 2015, is whether it was only applied to the Complainants or whether it was applied uniquely in such a manner that would raise concern. This is a law of general application which would be applicable to anyone. The Complainants also have not placed any evidence before the Commission that would establish a trend of differential application. It is therefore the position of the Commission that the Court applied the law to the Complainants as they would any company appearing before it. The High Court's refusal of the 1st Complainant to represent the 2nd Complaint therefore cannot amount to a violation of the right to be heard under .Article 7 of the Charter. 79. The Complainants also allege that the High Court's dismissal of the 2nd Complainant's application for legal aid was in violation of Article 7 of the Charter in that it was discriminatory. The Commission notes from the observations and evidence of the Respondent States that provision for legal aid in the South African Courts is made for criminal matters and not civil matters. What is clear from the facts of this case is that the principal dispute between the 1st and 2nd Complainant and DCD as litigated in the High, Supreme and Constitutional Courts was a civil matter. Furthermore, the 2nd Complainant was not being prosecuted in HC 31884/2015, and therefore could not have been eligible for legal aid under the Respondent State's Legal Aid South Africa Act. The Commission therefore notes that the Courts acted independently and impartially in dismissing the 2nd Complainant's legal aid application in HC 31884/ 2015, accordingly no violation of Article 7 can be found. 80. The Commission now turns to consider whether the High Court's joinder of the 1st Complainant to the order on costs made against the 2nd Complainant violated Article 7 and 26 of the Charter. From the relevant judgment, it appears the Court made a decision based on law observed in the Respondent State in which a person who is not a party to litigation but funds or stands to benef 46 Yates Investment (Pty) Limiters v Commissioner for Inland Revenue (120/55) (1955] Suprem Appeals 76 (5 November 1955) 18 I Page Afri;;nf\~ Un1on\Y The African Commission on Human and 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Komb West Coast Re Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 F=m;,il · ~ 11-h~ ni11lln);:tfrir.~-11ninn nrn