MOKGORO J relevant evidence to be considered there, or that this Court postpone the matter to enable the respondents to lodge such evidence here. [22] The lack of evidence before this Court does not, in and of itself, justify the granting of a postponement.14 A postponement is granted only at the discretion of the Court when it is in the interests of justice to do so.15 Had this case not involved the confirmation of an order declaring a legislative provision to be inconsistent with the Constitution, which if confirmed could have farreaching implications for the budget, the application for a postponement would almost certainly have been refused. The respondents were in wilful default both in the High Court and in this Court, and the government had also failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in terms of the Constitutional Court Complementary Act.16 [23] It would not, however, have been in the public interest in this case for this Court to have proceeded with the hearing without the information necessary for a proper determination of the case, nor would it have been appropriate to refer the matter back to the High Court. Even though the High Court had not provided a reasoned judgment for its decision, it had finalised the 14 National Coalition above n 12 at para 7. 15 Id at para 11; In re Certain Amicus Curiae Applications: Minister of Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign and Others 2002 (5) SA 713 (CC); 2002 (10) BCLR 1028 (CC) at para 7. 16 See para 14 above. 15