Judgment No. CCZ 14/201617 Const. Application No. CCZ 67/13 In this case no infringement of a fundamental right or freedom was established because the applicant adopted a wrong remedy for the protection of the rights she alleges were infringed. The principles of supremacy of the Constitution and one-system-of-law require that in the choice of the law and appropriate remedy for the protection of a fundamental right or freedom allegedly infringed by any conduct, consideration must be given to the question whether there is in existence a law of general application governing the conduct complained of and if there is, whether the constitutionality of that law is being impugned. The threshold test of law of general application excludes instances in which the party whose conduct has been found to limit a fundamental right cannot rely upon an existing rule of law as a justification for the limitation. There cannot be justification of conduct for which no legal authorization exists. The question of the validity of conduct which falls within the ambit of a law of general application cannot be determined by reference to the Constitution. It must be determined by reference to the provisions of the law of general application unless the constitutionality of that law is itselfbeing attacked. Woolman and Bishop- "Constitutional Law of South Africa" 2 ed Juta Vol. 2 at pp 34-47-34-48 comment as follows: "To say that only "law of general application" may justify the impairment of a fundamental right means that conduct- public or private- that limits a fundamental right but which is not sourced in a law of general application cannot be justified." In August v Electoral Commission and Others 1999(3) SA l (CC) para. 23 it was held that m the absence of a disqualifying legislative provision it was not possible for