Judgment No. CCZ 10/14 14 Constitutional Application No. SC 226/10 It was also the applicant’s contention that the learned trial magistrate, in his reasons for judgment, did not deal with all the grounds that the applicant had raised in his application for discharge and that that constituted a violation of his right to a fair trial. It is common cause that the learned trial magistrate did give reasons for the dismissal of the application for discharge. The reasons for discharge regrettably did not deal with the grounds of the application in any detail. However, the learned trial magistrate’s conclusion that the applicant had a case to answer and should be put on his defence cannot be faulted. Although his failure to give detailed reasons for judgment amounts to a misdirection, the misdirection did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court a quo’s misdirection in failing to take into account all the factors it was required by law to take into account constitutes an irregularity. The remedy provided by the law for rectifying such an irregularity is by way of review, in this case to the High Court. The irregularity in casu cannot found an application to the Constitutional Court in terms of s 24(1) of the Constitution. When an irregularity has been committed by an inferior court, a superior court has to decide whether the irregularity resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice justifying the setting aside of proceedings on review or appeal. If the irregularity does not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice the proceedings stand. However, the procedure to be followed when an application for discharge at the close of the State case is dismissed was set out by the Supreme Court in the case of S v Hunzvi 2000 (1) ZLR 540 (S), in which the Court held: