Judgment No. CCZ 10/14 8 Constitutional Application No. SC 226/10 The court a quo dismissed the application for referral to the Constitutional Court as frivolous and vexatious. The applicant now approaches this Court in terms of s 24(1) of the Constitution, on the basis that the court a quo violated his fundamental right by refusing to refer his case to this Court. The applicant contends that the dismissal of his application for referral violated his right to protection of the law guaranteed by s 18(1) of the Constitution, and his right to a fair trial guaranteed by s 18(2) of the Constitution. He further argued that his application for referral was neither vexatious nor frivolous. In essence the applicant’s case in this application is that – (a) the dismissal of the application for discharge constitutes a violation of his constitutional right to the protection of the law, in that the State had not established any one of the essential elements of the offence that he was being charged with; (b) the trial magistrate, by reason of his failure to give detailed reasons in his judgment for dismissing both applications, had violated the applicant’s right to a fair trial, the contention being that he should have addressed each of the six grounds that were advanced in support of the application for discharge before dismissing the application; and (c) the definition of “lawful authority” in s 2 of the Act was ultra vires s 16B(6) of the Constitution and was therefore unconstitutional.