19 Judgment No. CCZ 2/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 86/15 The fact that the transitional provision ensured that the retrospective application of the law to the applicants had the effect of imposing a financial burden in place of a benefit enjoyed under the existing law is no valid ground for impugning its constitutionality. Every civil legislation which is retrospectively applied would by nature have the effect of changing the existing law. Tax laws invariably impose financial obligations retrospectively on citizens. RETROSPECTIVITY AND FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS Retrospectivity is a ground for holding civil legislation invalid only if it contravenes one of the provisions of the Constitution which enshrine fundamental human rights and freedoms. One of the grounds on which the alternative case was advanced by the applicants for the alleged unconstitutionality of the transitional provision was that, in retrospectively imposing the new financial obligation on employers who terminated employees’ contracts on notice, the Legislature impaired the employer’s right to terminate the contract of employment on notice without treating the employee in a similar manner. The contention was that the law of contract provided equal protection to the employer and employee engaged in a contract of employment by giving them the freedom to terminate the relationship upon giving each other the requisite notice. The allegation was that, in violation of s 56(1) of the Constitution, the retrospective application of s 12 of the Act by the transitional provision denies employers the protection provided to both parties by the law of contract of the right to terminate the employment relationship on notice.