MOGOENG J Condonation: submissions [32] The Minister filed submissions, apparently prepared by junior counsel, on time. More detailed submissions prepared by both senior counsel and her junior were filed three days before the date of the hearing.18 Affidavits filed in support of the application for condonation were deposed to by people who have personal knowledge of only some of the issues surrounding the delay sought to be condoned.19 Hearsay evidence is thus relied on in an attempt to explain why the Minister‘s submissions were filed late. At least one of the two counsel should have explained the delay. The manner in which this matter was handled by the legal representatives of the Minister is unacceptable. [33] What ameliorates the failure to observe practice and the rules is that the late submissions do not really differ substantially from the shorter submissions. They merely elaborate on what had already been raised. For this reason, nothing raised therein could be said to have taken any of the other parties by surprise, and to have prejudiced them. [34] It is trite that the interests of justice require that all issues pertaining to a matter be ventilated fully and for all parties to be given the opportunity to state their case as comprehensively as possible. Additionally, none of the parties opposed this 18 In terms of the directions issued by the Court on 9 May 2011, the Minister‘s written submissions were to have been lodged by 12 July 2011. 19 The affidavits submitted were that of the Assistant State Attorney and that of his secretary, the latter being a confirmatory affidavit. 12