3 opposed by the applicant. After hearing argument and considering the matter the application for a postponement was dismissed and the Court indicated that reasons would be furnished later. [6] Urgency, having been disputed by the fist respondent, was then argued together with the merits and judgment was reserved and the Court indicated that judgment would be handed down on the 9th February 2009. [7] The first respondent, despite the Court's explicit directive in that regard, failed to file heads of argument. [8] The notice of motion reads as follows: 2.3 "1. This application is declared to be urgent and non-compliance with the rules of court pertaining to time limits, form and service are condoned insofar as is necessary; 2. The following parts of section 33 of the Electoral Act, No 73 of 1998, is declared to be in conflict with sections 3(2)(a), 9(1), 10 and 19(3)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996 (and thus invalid): 2.1 Subsection (1)(b); 2.2 The words “for purposes of a holiday, a business trip, attendance of a tertiary institution or an educational visit or participation in an international sports event” in subsection (1)(e). The words “temporary” and “intended” where they appear in subsection (1)(e). 3. The conflicts mentioned in paragraph 2 above arises from the unequal treatment in respect of the allowing of application for