Judgment No. CCZ 7/16 18 Const. Application No. CCZ 17/15 and neatly combed hair. The first respondent’s opposition in the High Court did not addresss the merits of the matter, but merely relied on the preliminary objections that the application was not urgent and that, in any case, the laws prohibiting discrimination did not apply to the school since it was a private non-governmental institution. On referral to the Supreme Court under s 24(2) of the former Constitution, the Court was called upon to determine three issues: whether the refusal to admit the children into the school on the basis of their failure to shave or trim their hair was discriminatory on the ground of creed in contravention of s 19(1) of the former Constitution; whether the decision of the school to refuse admission into the school was done under the authority of a law as envisaged in s 19(5) of the Constitution; and, if so, whether such law was reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. The applicants argued that the first respondent’s actions were clearly discriminatory and in contravention of s 19 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the school’s rules and regulations did not constitute a law and were not made under the authority of any law, i.e. the Education Act or its subsidiary regulations. The application before the Supreme Court was not opposed by any of the respondents. In the event, the Court granted an order simply prohibiting the school from refusing the childrens’ admission into the school on the basis of the length of their hair. There appear to have been no written reasons for the judgment. As with the Dzvova matter, the Kapasula case is clearly distinguishable from the situation in casu. The school’s rules and regulations were not authorised under any law within the contemplation of s 19 of the Constitution and were therefore patently ultra vires. More significantly, the applicants in both cases had not subscribed to any