6 Judgment No. CCZ 3/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 15/18 to be reached by political parties to secure entitlement to payment of moneys from the funds appropriated for the purpose of reimbursement of campaign costs is a mechanism that has the effect of promoting multi-party democracy. The third respondent prayed for costs on a legal practitioner and client scale against the applicants. The reason given for the order sought was that the application sought to be heard on an urgent basis sought substantially the same relief as was sought in the application that was dismissed by the Court on 26 June 2013. At the hearing of the application, the Court intimated to the parties that, as the dates for the harmonised general elections could be set by proclamation in terms of s 144(1) of the Constitution any time soon and the applicants were not legally represented, it was prudent to deal with the application as one for direct access. Authority for the approach is found in r 5 of the Rules. The respondents agreed. The applicants conceded that they ought to have sought and obtained leave to file the main application. They also agreed that the application be treated as one for direct access. Mr Chimombe, for the first respondent, argued that the main application had no prospects of success. He said the application was frivolous and vexatious. He argued that the applicants did not indicate the specific provisions of the Act which they alleged violated the provisions of s 67(4) of the Constitution. As a result of lack of reference to specific provisions of the Act alleged to be invalid, the relief sought was vague. He took the point that there was no constitutional matter for determination by the Court.