Indeed, DRATs should require borrower appellants to deposit a portion of the money ordered to be paid by the DRT as laid down in the law 2 as a matter of course, rather than routinely waiving such deposits as is reported to be the current practice.
•  It is worth examining if appellants should be made to pay the real costs of delay out of their own pockets if unsuccessful, where the costs include the interest costs of postponed payments. As suggested by the Supreme Court, Constitutional Courts should respect the spirit of the laws and entertain fewer appeals.