(3) Children are entitled to adequate protection by the courts, m particu~ar 63. by the High Court as their upper guardian." If this Court is the upper guardian of all minors, then it is guided by an entrenched principles of com.mon law, which is the best interest requirement. 64. Thus in Fletcher v Fletcher 1948 (1) SA 130 A, the Appellate Division of South Africa held that the most important factor have considered where children are considered whether children's custody and access is the best interest of the child. 65. Through this state, the best prov1s1on, has now been made a constitutional issue through the provisions of Section 81 (2) of the Constitution. More than that Section 81 (3) which states that children are entitled to adequate protection by the courts, in particular by the High Court as their upper guardian is also sucrocide. 66. The challenge to this Honourable Court therefore is a simple one it is to meet and be equal to the paramount nature of a child's interest and the fact that the line of protection is not two little girls struggling in Glenview but the Courts itself. 6 7. On this score, it is submitted very crudely and very basic that it cannot be in the interest of any child to married before the age of eighteen (18) years. It is that simple. 68. In Bannatyne v Bannatyne 2003 (2) SA 363 (CC); the South African Constitutional Court held that the best interest requirements provides obligations on parents to properly care for children. However it also imposed obligations on the State to create the necessarily conditions Page 24 of 46 Applicant's Heads of Argument in the matter between: Loveness Mudzuru & Another v Minister of Justice Legal & Parliamentary Affairs & 2 Others Case Number CCZ 79/2014 Prepared byTendai Biti Law