Judgment No. CCZ 14/2017 Const. Application No. SC 263/12 applicants’ legal practitioner referred to the charge that the applicants were facing as a contravention of s 46 as read with para 2 (f), and not para 2 (v), of the Third Schedule of the Codification Act. Furthermore, as already captured above, in para 13 of the written application the question for referral to this court was stated in the following terms: “The applicants request that the following question be referred to the Supreme Court in terms of section 24 (2) of the Constitution: Whether Section 2 (f) of the Third Schedule of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23], with the contravention of which the applicants are charged, is in violation of the following fundamental rights contained in the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Zimbabwe: …” (emphasis added) THE MAGISTRATE’S RULING ON THE APPLICATION FOR REFERRAL TO THIS COURT It is necessary to quote the relevant portion of the magistrate’s ruling. It reads: “The ten accused persons represented by Mr Lizwe Jamela are facing a charge of C/S 46 of the C.L.C.R. Act chapter 9:23 arw 2 (v) of the third schedule. (sic) However, in their submissions the applicants referred to c/s 46 arw section 2 (f) of the third schedule. The state responded very shortly by saying the application should be dismissed as it is frivolous and vexatious. A reading of section 2 (v) of the third schedule under which the applicants are charged is very wide and general. It is couched in the following terms: employs by means whatsoever (sic) which are likely materially to interfere with the ordinary comfort, convenience, peace or quiet of the public or any section of the public, or does any act which is likely to create a nuisance or obstruction shall be guilty of criminal nuisance. (sic) …… .” What is evident, despite the typographical and grammatical errors, is that the magistrate stated in the first sentence of her ruling that the applicants are facing a charge of contravening s 46 as read with para 2 (v) of the Third Schedule. In the next sentence she acknowledged that in their submissions, the applicants referred to a charge of contravening 3