From the evidence that was adduced, the court found that it was proper for the
Constitutional Court to award interests to the respondent, considering the
circumstances of the case. However, it was found by majority Justices that interest
at the rate of 24% was high thereby reducing it to 6% per annum.
In the dissenting judgment of one Justice, she found that allowing interest at any
rate was to correct a wrong by another wrong. That it would amount to further
alteration of the consent judgment. He therefore allowed the appeal but gave no
order as to interests or costs.