MOKGORO J [35] An offer to settle the dispute made by one litigant to the other, even if accepted, cannot cure the ensuing legal uncertainty or dispose of the confirmation proceedings. Even if the applicants had accepted the offer it would have settled the dispute only between these litigants. The impact of the settlement would have been too limited and would not resolve the unconstitutionality of the impugned provisions and the impact that they have on the broader group of permanent residents who qualify in all other respects for social grants. An important purpose of confirmation proceedings is to ensure legal certainty.39 If parties were permitted to reach agreements that would remove this Court’s power to hear confirmation proceedings in relation to an order of invalidity, that purpose would be defeated. Standing [36] In the High Court the applicants brought their application under section 38(a)-(e) of the Constitution.40 They claimed standing in their private capacities, on behalf of their children and on behalf of permanent residents who cannot act in their own names, and in the interest of classes of permanent residents and children affected by the impugned legislation. The applicants also claimed to act in the public interest. However, before this Court, the 39 President, Ordinary Court Martial above n 17 at para 14. 40 Section 38(a)-(e) of the Constitution entitles the following persons to approach a competent Court for the enforcement of rights contained in the Bill of Rights: “(a) anyone acting in their own interest; (b) anyone acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name; (c) anyone acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons; (d) anyone acting in the public interest; and (e) an association acting in the interest of its members.” 24