Judgment No. CCZ 6/2016 10 Const. Application No CCZ 28/14 Undoubtedly, it is within the powers of a court before which a constitutional matter is argued to grant, in an appropriate case, a mandatory interdict or mandamus. I have already concluded that since the complaint does not relate to the breach of a fundamental right, the applicant is not entitled to approach the Court in terms of s 85. However, even assuming the applicant was properly before the Court, he has not made out a case for the mandamus that he seeks. [13] While not necessarily bound by them, the Court is generally guided by common law principles relating to interdicts. Thus in order to prove his entitlement to a mandamus in this case, the applicant would be required to meet the requirements for the grant of a final interdict. These are: - A clear right; - An injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended; and - The absence of a similar protection by any other remedy. 9 [14] It was submitted by the respondents that the applicant had not satisfied these requirements. I agree. In terms of s 264(1), the division of the provinces into districts is to take place whenever appropriate. The section is not cast in mandatory terms. The State has been given a constitutional mandate to decide when it is appropriate and it is not for the applicant to make that decision. Reading all provisions as a whole, as one must in interpreting the Constitution, that decision is a prerequisite to s 267. Once that decision has been made, it can only be implemented by an Act of Parliament after consultations with Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and the persons affected by the proposed change. While it is true that the Metropolitan Councils form one of the tiers in the order of Government as set out in the Constitution10 it is also true that no time limits have been set by 9 Tribac Private Limited v Tobacco Marketing Board 1996(2) ZLR 52 (S) S5(b) of the Constitution 10