Judgment No. CCZ 10/14 6 Constitutional Application No. SC 226/10 the correspondence is between the applicant in his personal capacity and Government officials. There is nothing in the correspondence that suggests that the applicant was acting on behalf of a company or some third party. At the close of the State case, the applicant applied for a discharge. In his application for a discharge, the applicant submitted that none of the six essential elements of the offence charged had been proved or alleged to justify his being put on his defence. He submitted that for the applicant to be put on his defence the State had to lead evidence that prima facie establishes the following as the essential elements of the charge, that – (a) the accused was a former owner or occupier; (b) of gazetted or acquired land; (c) he has not ceased to occupy, hold or use that gazetted land; (d) after the expiry of the appropriate period referred to, which in the present case is forty-five days after the fixed date; (e) the accused as the former owner or occupier has no lawful authority to occupy, hold or use that land. The applicant also pleaded invalidity of s 2 of the Act and mistake of law. The application for a discharge was dismissed. In dismissing the application for a discharge, the learned trial magistrate concluded that the applicant had a case to answer and should be put on his defence. Dissatisfied with that ruling, the applicant applied for a referral of the matter to the Constitutional Court in terms of s 24(2) of the Constitution, which provides as follows: