Judgment No. CCZ 10/14 9 Constitutional Application No. SC 226/10 The first issue that falls for determination by this Court is whether the court a quo was correct in dismissing the application for referral as frivolous and vexatious. If the court a quo was correct in dismissing the application for referral that is the end of the matter. If the court a quo erred in dismissing the application for referral, then this Court is at large to consider the issue of whether the applicant’s rights were violated. The applicant’s contention that the definition of “lawful authority” in the Act is ultra vires the Constitution raises a constitutional issue. Once a constitutional issue arises in any proceedings in an inferior court, it should be referred to the Constitutional Court unless such an application is frivolous or vexatious. The contention that s 2 of the Act is ultra vires s 16B(6) of the Constitution is a constitutional issue that arose during the proceedings in the court a quo. This constitutional issue is neither frivolous nor vexatious. The court a quo was therefore required in terms of s 24(2) of the Constitution to refer this matter to the Constitutional Court. The court a quo’s failure to refer the constitutional issue raised to the Constitutional Court constitutes a violation of the applicant’s constitutional right to protection of the law guaranteed in terms of s 18(1) of the Constitution. Such violation entitles the applicant to approach the Constitutional Court in terms of s 24(1) of the Constitution. I am therefore satisfied that this application is properly before this Court and this Court is at large to consider the constitutional issues raised in the application to this Court as if it were the court of first instance. In this regard see Martin v Attorney-General and Anor 1993 (1) ZLR 153 (S) at pp 158H-159A, wherein the Court had this to say: