Judgment No. CCZ 3/2016 5 Const. Application No. CCZ 123/13 governing the occupation and use of State land. Any person claiming lawful authority to occupy or use State land had to produce an offer letter, or lease relating to the agricultural land concerned. The applicant founded her cause of action on s 68 of the Constitution. In paras. 17 and 18 of the founding affidavit, the applicant avers as follows: “17. Second respondent was allocated the arable portion of the property which I was using in my rose production. This is the portion of the property where one can engage in farming activities as compared to the other portion which is not arable. 18. The decision of the 1st respondent to subdivide the property and allocate the 2 nd respondent the portion that I was using and shoving me to the rocky, mountainous and unarable portion is grossly arbitrary and unreasonable.” The meaning of s 68 of the Constitution escaped the applicant’s legal representative. Section 68(1) of the Constitution gives every person the right to administrative conduct and sets out the standards the conduct has to meet. In subs (1), s 68 of the Constitution defines the scope, substantive and procedural content of the right concerned. Subsection (2) gives a person whose right has been infringed by an administrative conduct a right to be given promptly written reasons for the conduct. In subs (3) s 68 of the Constitution goes on to provide that there shall be an Act of Parliament that gives effect to the rights given under subss (1) and (2). Subsection (3) of s 68 of the Constitution provides that the Act of Parliament giving effect to the rights given under subss (1) and (2) must require that administrative conduct should meet the standards set out in subs (1) and that there be the substantive and procedural protection required under subs (2) in the event of alleged infringement of the right by an