Judgment No. CCZ 12/2015 9 Const. Application No. 79/14 claiming locus standi under s 85(1) of the Constitution, a person should act in one capacity in approaching a court and not act in two or more capacities in one proceeding. The respondents correctly submitted that, although the applicants claimed to have been acting in their own interests in terms of s 85(1)(a) of the Constitution, the facts showed that they had failed to satisfy the requirements of that rule. The rule requires that the person claiming the right to approach the court must show on the facts that he or she seeks to vindicate his or her own interest adversely affected by an infringement of a fundamental right or freedom. The infringement must be in relation to himself or herself as the victim or there must be harm or injury to his or her own interests arising directly from the infringement of a fundamental right or freedom of another person. In other words the person must have a direct relationship with the cause of action. The first part of the rule of standing under s 85(1)(a) of the Constitution needs no elaboration. Its content has constituted the meaning of the traditional and narrow rule of standing with which any common law lawyer is familiar. It is the rule which prompted CHIDYAUSIKU CJ to comment in Mawarire v Mugabe NO and Others CCZ 1/2013 at p 8 of the cyclostyled judgment: “Certainly this Court does not expect to appear before it only those who are dripping with the blood of the actual infringement of their rights or those who are shivering incoherently with the fear of the impending threat which has actually engulfed them. This Court will entertain even those who calmly perceive a looming infringement and issue a declaration or appropriate order to stave the threat, more so under the liberal post-2009 requirements.”