[30] The purpose of this rule is to afford any interested party an opportunity to be admitted to the proceedings as amicus curiae (friend of the court). In Fourie And Another v Minister Of Home Affairs And Others 8the court said: "The purpose of the rule is to enable parties interested in a constitutional issue to seek to be admitted as amici curiae in the case in which the issue is raised so that they can advance submissions in regard thereto."9\ [31] Referring to the matter of Shaik v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development10, Counsel for the defendant submitted that, by way of an example, parties in Divorce matters use private investigators and might be interested to appoint amicus curiae. Therefore, it was important to comply with Rule 16A, he submitted. Counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that the court should take a leaf out of Rogers JA, as he then was, in the matter of Shelfplett v MEC For Environmental Affairs.11 [32] As already stated at the commencement of this judgment, this issue might pique the interest of some people who might want to be heard. I am not convinced that it is in the interest of justice to dispense with the requirements as envisaged in 16A(9). It appears to me that the practical way to get round the parties' failure to deal with Rule 16A is to adjourn the judgment for 20 days for the plaintiff to correct the misstep. Accordingly, I direct that the parties comply with Rule16A of the Uniform Rules of Court to a T. Upon the expiry of 20 days, this court will issue a directive on the way forward, if there are any takers. If there are none, this court will proceed and finalise the judgment. The advantages for this course are patent, namely: the postponement of the matter is averted, the court is likely to hear from amici curiae who might fortify its judgment and finally compliance with the Rules, which cannot be overstated, would have been achieved. Order 8 2005(3) SA 429 SCA, Supra page 452 E 10 2004(3) SA599 (CC) 11 2012 (3) SA 441 9