Judgment No. CCZ 6/2016 9 Const. Application No CCZ 28/14 [11] Clearly the guarantee provided by s 56(1) is that of equality under the law. The applicant has made no allegation of unequal treatment or differentiation. He has not shown that he was denied protection of the law while others in his position have been afforded such protection. He has presented the Court with no evidence that he has been denied equal protection and benefit of the law. The failure by the respondents to enact the legislation contended for has not been shown to discriminate against him in favour of others. In short, the applicant has come nowhere near to establishing that his right enshrined in s 56(1) of the Constitution has been infringed. He is therefore not entitled to a remedy. In view of this conclusion the issue of a mandamus becomes irrelevant. However, since the point was argued before us, I make the following remarks. THE APPLICATION FOR A MANDAMUS [12] The applicant claims that the failure by the respondents to enact the law envisaged in s 267 of the Constitution is a breach of the Constitution for which he is entitled to approach this Court seeking a mandamus. Section 264 (1) of the Constitution provides: “264 Devolution of governmental powers and responsibilities (1) Whenever appropriate, governmental powers and responsibilities must be devolved to provincial and metropolitan councils and local authorities which are competent to carry out those responsibilities efficiently and effectively.” Section 267 (1) lists the Provinces of Zimbabwe and subs (2) provides; (2) An Act of Parliament— (a) must provide for the division of provinces into districts; and (b) may provide for the alteration of provincial and district boundaries; after consultation with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and the people in the provinces and districts concerned.”