18 Judgment No. CCZ 2/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 86/15 The transitional provision expressly provided that s 12 of the Act operated retrospectively. The constitutionality of the retrospectivity of the transitional provision could not without more be challenged. To put it simply, unlike criminal liability retrospective civil liability is not unconstitutional. The Legislature must be presumed to have applied its mind to the possible effects of the use of retrospectivity to implement the legislation it enacted and determined that the benefits of its employment outweighed the potential for unfairness. The argument by Mr Mpofu that the transitional provision is invalid, because it had a financial obligation imposed on the applicants retrospectively, suggests that the nature of the obligation is a material and determinant factor in the consideration of the question of the constitutionality of the retrospective effect of the legislation. The correct principle is that there is no constitutional provision which forbids the Legislature, in the exercise of its powers, to impose financial obligations retrospectively by means of civil legislation. The validity of the retrospective effect of legislation cannot be measured in terms of the nature of the obligation imposed. In the exercise of its power under s 117(2)(b) of the Constitution, the Legislature can legislate any subject matter and order retrospective application of civil legislation as long as doing so is for the purposes of peace, order and good governance of Zimbabwe. The Legislature is at liberty to decide whether the civil legislation enacted is to have retrospective application.