MOKGORO J respondents contested the appropriateness of the applicants bringing these proceedings in the public interest. They contended that the issues of fact and law raised in this case concern a finite group of persons and not permanent residents in general.41 Thus, the case regarding a wider category of permanent residents, in the circumstances, was abstract and hypothetical and should not be entertained. [37] In my view, the applicants meet more than one of the requirements under section 38. They need not satisfy all of the provisions in section 38 for them to have standing to approach this Court.42 In this case, the status of the applicants as permanent residents is sufficient to accord them standing to bring this challenge. Further, it is appropriate for the applicants to bring this matter in the interest of permanent residents and children who are in the care of permanent residents. They are indeed members of a group or class of people who would qualify for social assistance under the Act but for the fact that they are not South African citizens. They also act on behalf of children who cannot act on their own and who would qualify for social assistance but for the citizenship limitation. I am satisfied that based on these provisions the applicants have standing before this Court. There is therefore no need to decide the applicants’ claim of public-interest standing. 41 The respondents relied on the fact that the declaration of invalidity sought in the High Court had a clearly defined group of persons whose names were attached to the applicants’ notice of motion and could therefore not be extended to a ‘nameless’ group of persons. 42 South African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Another 1999 (4) SA 469 (CC); 1999 (6) BCLR 615 (CC) at para 4. 25