Judgment No. CCZ 10/14 15 Constitutional Application No. SC 226/10 “… that the accused has no right of appeal against the refusal of a trial judge to discharge at the end of the prosecution case because at that stage the final determination of the trial has not been reached and the proceedings are still on-going. After conviction, however, the accused has the absolute right, under s 44(2)(a) of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], to appeal to the Supreme Court on any ground involving a question of law. A refusal to discharge is a question of law and so may be relied upon as a ground of appeal. The ground of refusal to discharge would only succeed if on appeal it were found that at the close of the prosecution case there was no evidence justifying a conviction and that the defence case furnished no proof of guilt.” Thus, the remedy available to the applicant was one of appeal to the High Court at the conclusion of the trial. I find no merit in the contention that the failure to give detailed reasons for judgment violated the applicant’s right to a fair trial and that the case should have been referred to the Constitutional Court on that basis. I finally turn to deal with the issue of what constitutes “lawful authority” and whether the applicant had “lawful authority” to occupy the farm. Section 2(1) of the Act provides as follows: “2 Interpretation (1) In this Act — ‘acquiring authority’ means the Minister responsible for land or any other Minister to whom the President may, from time to time, assign the administration of this Act; ‘fixed date’ means the date fixed in terms of section 1(2) as the date of commencement of this Act; … ‘lawful authority’ means — (a) an offer letter; or (b) a permit; or