This matter concerns two applications for direct leave to appeal against the whole judgment and order of Potterill J in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria (High Court). It is common cause that both applications seek the same relief and challenge the order, albeit for slightly different reasons. As a matter of convenience, the cases were set down for hearing simultaneously. Although the matters were heard together, they were not consolidated and were treated as separate applications.
 The adjudication of this matter is of national importance as it concerns the granting of interim orders against the Public Protector – a State institution that is constitutionally mandated to strengthen constitutional democracy in the Republic. To this end, the legal question that this Court is called to answer can be summarised as follows: how should a High Court approach an application for interim relief to suspend the implementation of remedial action that the Public Protector directs against a member of the Executive when that same member of the Executive challenges the legality of the remedial action? In other words, the question relates to the appropriate test to be employed when the High Court is called upon to grant an interim interdict against the Public Protector’s remedial action and report.