NGCOBO J confirm the conviction of Mr Mokoena, it cannot be said that it was in the interests of justice for the High Court, of its own accord, to raise and decide the constitutional issues. [48] For all these reasons the conclusion that it was inappropriate for the High Court to raise the constitutional issues in relation to the Mokoena matter is irresistible. If anything, Mr Mokoena’s case demonstrates the need for courts to be astute in raising and deciding constitutional issues. Unless they do, the result may be an unnecessary delay in finalising a case in circumstances where, as here, the decision on the constitutional issues was not necessary for the determination of the case before the court. As the High Court stated itself, elsewhere in its judgment, constitutional matters should not be addressed prior to deciding non-constitutional issues “unless such decision [on the constitutional issue] is necessary for a proper assessment of the non-constitutional issues at stake.”43 Regrettably, the High Court did not apply this principle in the case of Mr Mokoena. [49] It was therefore inappropriate for the High Court to raise the constitutional issues that it raised in the Mokoena matter. Mr Phaswane [50] The only issue that the High Court could - on the facts - validly have raised is the constitutional validity of sections 170A(1) and 170A(7) (the intermediary 43 Id at para 24. 26