.(-~ ACHPR ff:, ii.j\ African Commission on ~ h .r.r ) ~ Human and Peoples' Rights Human R;ghts oo, Collective Responsibility litigation may be jojned for the purposes of obtaining costs from them.47 From the legal precedent cited by the Court and its reasoning, it is clear to the Commission that this appears to be established law not arbitrary practice imposed exclusively on the 1st Complainant. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the Complainants have not established any bias in which the Court deviated from conventional practice. Accordingly, no violation of the alleged articles can be discerned from the High Court's joinder of the 1st Complainant to the order of costs against the 2nd Complainant. 81. The Commission now turns to consider whether the Supreme Court of Appeal's dismissal of the Complainants' application for leave to appeal Case Number 31884/2015 in SCA 354/19, which was again upheld in Constitutional Court case CCT162/19 violated the Complainants' rights under Article 7 and 26 of the Charter. The Complainants allege that the dismissals ,o ccurred without reasons. The Commission notes from the evidence submitted by the Complainants, being the Order of the Supreme Court of Appeal, that the Court indeed stipulated why the application was dismissed. 48 From the second page of the judgment in question, one can glean that the "The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the grounds (hat there is no reasonable prospect of success in an appeal and there is no other compelling reason why an appeal should be heard." This too is confirmed by the Respondent State in their pleadings on the merits, an averment that the Commission finds to be persuasive. 82. However, the Commission considers that what the Complainants claim to be absence of reasons in this case is the absence of a full judgment such as the one provided by the High Court in case number 31884/2015. The Commission notes that whilst tlle dismissal was indeed not communicated in a lengthy judgment, the reasons ·for the decision were indeed provided, nonetheless. The Respondent State argues that under South African law, Superior courts may dismiss applications for leave to appeal by issuing an order without a comprehensive judgment as that would have been addressed in the Court aquo. The Commission is persuaded by this position, as the Respondent State postulates, it would defeat the purposes of requiring leave to appeal if Courts would dedicate their time and resources belaboring points which would have been addressed in the lower courts. The Commission considers th .q..., o"' (TAR O Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the Complainants' leave to ap ~ '.qr ~ l 0 u 47 HC 31884/15 Para 13-19 48 Case No; 354/19 Annexure "B" page 2 19 I Page The African Commission on Human and Peoples' -~•~ ii;:::==:::,-., 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District. West Coast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Fm::.il · ~1 1-h ~ni1 iltm~frir.~-11ninn nrn