Judgment No. CCZ 8/15 5 Civil Application No. CCZ 62/15 [9] On the question of urgency, Mr Chagonda submitted that there was no urgency justifying the order sought by the applicants. The matter commenced as a simple labour dispute which was finally heard on appeal, by the Supreme Court, in February 2015. At no stage during the protracted proceedings which commenced at the respondent’s workplace and from there moved to the Labour Officer, the arbitrator, the Labour Court and finally the Supreme Court, was there ever any question of the matter being determined on an urgent basis. [10] The cases of other employees whose employment had been terminated were not before this Court, never were, and are not in any way linked to the applicants’ case. It was submitted that on both grounds, the application ought to be dismissed. DISPOSITION [11] Having considered the submissions by the parties I agree with Mr Chagonda that the applicants have not established any right to approach the Constitutional Court by way of appeal. Section 167(5) relates to rules of procedure regulating the manner of approach to this Court on appeal from lower courts. It does not confer a right to appeal to the Constitutional Court on a litigant who has no right of appeal. For this right, the litigant must look elsewhere in the Constitution. In my view, such a right may be read into s 175 (3) of the Constitution which applies where an order of constitutional invalidity of any law has been made by a court. Failing that, a right of appeal could only arise where the Supreme Court makes a decision on a constitutional matter.