Judgment No. CCZ 9/18 Civil Appeal No. CCZ 5/18 (S) which were decided before the promulgation of the Constitution remains valid as providing general guiding principles while s 86 (2) sets out in detail the factors that a court must take into account in determining whether or not a limitation of a fundamental right is constitutional. I so hold. The general approach is based on two principles. The first principle is a presumption in favour of constitutionality. The presumption holds that where a piece of legislation is capable of two meanings, one falling within and the other outside the provisions of the Constitution, the court must uphold the one that falls within. The correct approach of presuming constitutionality is to avoid interpreting the Constitution in a restricted manner in order to accommodate the challenged legislation. Instead, after properly interpreting the Constitution, the court then examines the challenged legislation to establish whether it fits into the framework of the Constitution. This approach gives the Constitution its rightful place, one of primacy over the challenged legislation. The Constitution is properly interpreted first to get its true meaning. Only thereafter is the challenged legislation held against the properly constructed provision of the Constitution to test its validity. In other words, one does not stretch the Constitution to cover the challenged legislation but instead, one assesses the challenged law, and tries to fit it like a jigsaw puzzle piece into the big picture which is the Constitution. If it does not fit, it must be thrown away. (See Zimbabwe Township Development (Pvt) Ltd v Lou’s Shoes (Pvt) Ltd 1983 (2) ZLR 376 (S)). 11