Judgment No. CCZ 1/2014 8 Const. Application No. SC 240/2010 The headnote reads: “The referral was incompetent. It should have been requested before the magistrate rendered a decision. Once he had made a decision, the matter could only be dealt with by way of appeal or review”. (emphasis added) In this case there was no request for a referral of the question that placing the applicants on remand was likely to violate their right to personal liberty protected by s 13(1) of the Constitution before the decision was made by the magistrate to remand them on the ground that there was a reasonable suspicion of their having committed the offences with which they were charged. The magistrate made the decision to remand the applicants for trial notwithstanding the question of the alleged violation of their right to personal liberty having been raised because there was no request for a referral. The question was therefore not referred and the decision of the magistrate on review was found to have been consistent with the factors the court was required to consider under s 13(2)(e) of the Constitution. Section 24(3) of the Constitution applied to the proceedings. In Jestina Mungarewa Mukoko v Commissioner General of Police & 4 Ors SC 3/09, CHIDYAUSIKU CJ at p 2 of the cyclostyled judgment said: “Section 24 of the Constitution is peremptory. This court has no discretion to condone a departure from compliance with s 24 of the Constitution. Consequently failure to comply with the procedure set out in s 24 of the Constitution is fatal to any Court application made in terms thereof.” The learned CHIEF JUSTICE went on to say at p 3: ”Thus, when a matter is before the High Court or any court subordinate to the High Court, such as the magistrates court in this case, the question of the contravention of the