Judgment No. CCZ 14/2017 Const. Application No. SC 263/12 against the applicants would, if proved, lead to their conviction on the offence charged. He submitted that in the result, the application that this Court declare the applicants’ prosecution unlawful and order a permanent stay of proceedings against them ought to be dismissed. THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT The following appear to be the pertinent issues for this court to decide, viz whether this court is properly seized with this matter and if so whether the applicants are entitled to a permanent stay of the proceedings against them in the magistrate’s court. WHETHER THIS COURT IS PROPERLY SEIZED WITH THIS MATTER The issue relates to whether this matter was properly brought before this court in terms of s 24 (2) of the former Constitution. Section 24 (2) of the former Constitution provides: “(2) If in any proceedings in the High Court or in any court subordinate to the High Court any question arises as to the contravention of the Declaration of Rights, the person presiding in that court may, and if so requested by any party to the proceedings shall, refer the question to the Supreme Court unless, in his opinion, the raising of the question is merely frivolous or vexatious.” It is not in dispute that on a reading of para 13 of the application that was made before the magistrate, a constitutional issue was raised by the applicant. In terms of s 24 (2) (supra), the magistrate was obliged to refer the question to the Supreme Court unless in her opinion the raising of the question was merely frivolous or vexatious. This position is well settled. See Martin v Attorney-General 1993 (1) ZLR 153 (S) at 156 H The essence of the magistrate’s ruling is captured in the last para of the ruling. It reads: 7