Page 5 [10] This approach was followed in a number of cases8 culminating in the endorsement of the approach by the Supreme Court of Appeal. 9 [11] Once it is found that there is a right to representation at State expense in certain civil cases, I can conceive of no logical reason why a judicial officer should not inform the person appearing before him/her of that right, and how to exercise it. There is no logical basis for distinguishing between criminal and civil matters. The issues in civil matters are equally complex and the laws and procedures difficult to understand. Failure by a judicial officer to inform these litigants of their rights, how to exercise them and where to obtain assistance may result in a miscarriage of justice. [12] The following order is made: 1 1.1 It is declared that: The persons who have a right to security of tenure in terms of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Act 62 of 1997 and the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act, Act 3 of 1996, and whose security of tenure is threatened or has been infringed, have a right to legal representation or legal aid at State expense if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and if they cannot reasonably afford the cost thereof from their own resources. 1.2 The State is under a duty to provide such legal representation or legal aid through mechanisms selected by it. 1.3 The cases in which substantial injustice could result include, but are not limited to, cases where 8 S v Khanyile and Another 1988 (3) SA 795 (N) at 800C-D; S v Rudman; S v Johnson; S v Xaso, Xaso v Van Wyk NO and Another 1989 (3) SA 368 (E) at 381G-382D; S v Mthwana 1989 (4) SA 361 (N) at 371D-F. 9 S v Mabaso and Another 1990 (3) SA 185 (A) at 203G.