Judgment No. CCZ 8/15 4 Civil Application No. CCZ 62/15 [6] On the question of urgency, Mr Madhuku submitted that the test for urgency is ‘not the same’ in constitutional matters. He submitted that the urgency in this case arises not from the personal circumstances of the applicants, but from the public interest and the public importance of the case. Consideration had to be given to the interests of society and judicial notice ought to be taken that thousands of people had already lost their jobs since the judgment sought to be appealed against was delivered. Neither in the certificate of urgency nor in his submissions before me was any reference made to any circumstances of the applicants which might give rise to a need for an urgent hearing of the matter. RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS [7] On the question of the right of appeal, Mr Chagonda submitted that the alleged appeal said to be pending before the Constitutional Court is in fact a nullity as the applicants have no right of appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Court. He submitted that an appeal invites a superior court to determine the correctness of the lower court’s decision on issues which were placed before it. There were no constitutional issues placed before the Supreme Court for determination, or determined by the Supreme Court. There could, therefore, be no right of appeal since no decision was made by that court on constitutional matters. [8] It was further submitted that the proper recourse available to the applicants was to bring an application in terms of s 85 of the Constitution if it was felt that a breach of their fundamental rights had occurred.