15 Judgment No. CCZ 3/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 15/18 It is the Constitution itself which dictates what the President must do. The proclamation is directly demanded by the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the courts cannot abrogate it. Their duty is to enforce what the Constitution demands. The applicants have no right which may conceivably be injured by the lawful performance by the President of the constitutional obligation. From the nature of the relief sought, it is clear that the applicants have no right, let alone a prima facie right, to payment of the money payable under the Act to any political party whose candidates received at least five per centum of the total number of votes cast in the most recent general election. The principle that an interdict cannot be granted to prevent the occurrence of a lawful act has become part of our law. In other words, a court of law has no competence to make such an order which is by nature and effect contrary to the rule of law. In Minister of Lands v Paliouras; Minister of Lands v Wiggill 2001 (2) ZLR 22 (S), CHIDYAUSIKU ACJ (as he then was) at 28G-29A stated as follows: “The respondents’ contention that the appellant is prohibited from exercising any of the above powers which he is expressly authorised by Parliament to exercise raises the fundamental issue of jurisdictional competence. Can a court interdict the appellant from acquiring land for redistribution in accordance with explicit provisions of an Act of Parliament? Not only is this a debatable point, but the wisdom of such an interdict is questionable. The interdiction of patently lawful conduct can hardly further the rule of law. That issue however is not before the court and will have to await determination another day.” The determination of the issue came in Airfield Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement and Others 2004 (1) ZLR 511 (S). The Court said at 518B-E: