Judgment No. CCZ 6/2015 9 Const Application No. 02/14 Turning now to the additional considerations that are particular to the interpretation of the constitution, I find the following dictum from the Namibian case of Minister of Defence, Namibia v Mwandinghi 1992 (2) SA 355 (Nm) to be both apposite and instructive;3 ….the whole tenor of Chapter 111 (of its constitution) and the influence upon it of international human rights instruments from which many of its provisions were derived, call for a generous broad and purposive interpretation that avoids the austerity of tabulated legalism. (my emphasis) These remarks are echoed in the following summation by the learned author EA Kellaway4; “The principle of interpretation of a state’s constitution incorporating a bill of rights may be stated thus: An interpreter should follow the submitted triple synthesis of literalism, intentionalism and purposiveness principle, as is done in the interpretation of any other statute…” Thus while a constitution is to be interpreted in accordance with the rules relating to statutes generally, the authorities suggest that a court called upon to interpret such a constitution should give a generous and purposive construction to its provisions, particularly the entrenched fundamental rights and freedoms. It appears to me that in this process the purpose of the provision in question is to be given particular attention. When all this is applied to the circumstances of this case, there is in my view no gainsaying the fact that a literal and grammatical meaning ascribed to s 85(1) would be inconsistent with s 175 (4). This is to the extent that such meaning would give room to litigants in proceedings underway in a lower court to abandon such proceedings midstream 3 See also among others, Rattigan vs Chief immigration Officer 7 Others 1994 (2) ZLR 54 (s); Capital Radio (Pvt) Ltd v Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe 2003 (2) ZLR 236 4 Ibid at page at page 216