MAJIEDT J [36] Direct appeals to this Court are permitted only where the interests of justice so permit.27 In Khumalo, this Court granted leave to appeal directly to it on the basis that: “The extent to which the Constitution requires a development of the law of defamation is a question which has been frequently asked. The issue was raised but not answered in an early decision of this Court, Du Plessis and Others v De Klerk and Another 1996 (3) SA 850 (CC) (1996 (5) BCLR 658), and has been considered in a considerable number of High Court judgments since. It is also a matter which has received the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal in National Media Ltd v Bogoshi and has also troubled Courts in many other jurisdictions. In all these circumstances, therefore, it seems that it would be in the interests of justice for this Court to consider the appeal. The application for leave to appeal is therefore granted (though to avoid confusion I shall continue to refer to the appellants as applicants).”28 (Footnotes omitted.) [37] Leave to appeal ought to be granted directly to this Court. Unlike the case in CCT 67/21, this matter does not face the challenge of binding precedent in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SA Taxi, as alluded to in paragraph [8] above). However, the two cases are closely linked, relate to the same parties, are based on the same causes of action and engage public policy considerations, so that it is undoubtedly in the interests of justice for the cases to be heard and dealt with simultaneously. I am cognisant of the fact that this Court is reluctant to bypass the Supreme Court of Appeal in matters relating to the development of the common law, however, the fact that that Court has already heard the case on corporate defamation in SA Taxi and that it is not desirable to split the two cases, weighs in favour of this Court granting leave. It is thus “Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum.” 27 Khumalo above n 13 at para 7. See also Baloyi v Public Protector [2020] ZACC 27; 2022 (3) SA 321 (CC); 2021 (2) BCLR 101 (CC) at para 13; Public Protector v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service [2020] ZACC 28; 2022 (1) SA 340 (CC); 2021 (5) BCLR 522 (CC) at para 16 and United Democratic Movement v Speaker, National Assembly [2017] ZACC 21; 2017 (5) SA 300 (CC); 2017 (8) BCLR 1061 (CC) at para 23. 28 Khumalo id at para 16. 16