Judgment No. CCZ 7/2014 16 Const. Application No. 41/2014 whose effects on small businesses such as that of Applicant and indeed across Zimbabwe may be ominous and permanent.” Mr Sakhe argued that the applicant has not advanced any cogent reasons on the papers as to why the constitutional matter should be heard on an urgent basis. The certificate of urgency is clearly unhelpful. It does not assist the court to decide whether or not to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. Not only does the certificate of urgency make bald and unsubstantiated allegations of imminent financial ruin befalling the applicant should the tax recovery measures be effected some of the statements are false. It is making a false statement to say that by adopting the tax recovery measures thbe respondent is enforcing “arbitrary and summary procedures”. The respondent is authorized by the law to adopt the tax recovery measures. What is clear from the applicant’s papers is that it is intent on stopping dead all efforts to make it pay the tax demanded by the respondent. The subjective desire for a remedy is not in itself a factor on the basis of which an order affording a party the privilege of jumping the queue and have his or her matter heard ahead of other litigants in a similar situation can be granted. The question of validity of ss 36 of the VAT Act and 69(1) of the Income Tax Act which is the subject matter of the constitutional proceedings is to be decided from the point of view of the Constitution. It cannot be determined by having regard to the legality of the conduct of the respondent. The effect on the applicant’s business of the tax recovery measures adopted by the respondent, would be irrelevant to the consideration of the question whether the statutory