MOKGORO J High Court and which is in force, as amended by the Welfare Laws Amendment Act, is section 4(b)(ii) of the Act. [29] In their written argument, the applicants therefore sought to reserve the right to amend their notice of motion so as to challenge the amended section before this Court. However, no such application was made, either in writing or in oral argument. Were the applicants to have done so, this would potentially have changed the nature of the proceedings in the Khosa matter from confirmation proceedings to an application for direct access to challenge the constitutionality of a section that was not directly before the High Court.28 If section 3(c) prior to amendment is found to be unconstitutional, it would certainly be the case that section 3(c) after amendment would also be unconstitutional, given that the wording of the two subsections is substantively identical. I return to the question of the constitutionality of the section after amendment later in this judgment. [30] In the case of section 4B(b)(ii), no substantively similar provision is made for care-dependency grants in the existing legislation. Care-dependency grants are defined in section 1 of the Act and administered under section 2(g) of the Act. Regulation 5 read with regulation 9 under the Act currently provides for the administration of these care-dependency grants. There is nothing in the Act, or in either of those regulations or in any other applicable 28 See Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another 2003 (4) SA 266 (CC); 2002 (9) BCLR 986 (CC) at para 5. 19