Judgment No. CCZ 12/2015 54 Const. Application No. 79/14 There cannot be a family founded by a child. Even under the provisions of s 22(1) of the Marriage Act, pregnancy was not regarded as a condition necessary for marriage. Of urgency is the prevention of the ongoing violations of the girl child’s fundamental rights. Once the fact that child marriage has been abolished in Zimbabwe is known, the imperative character of the law shall be felt in the hearts and minds of many men and women so strongly that transformative obedience to it shall become a matter of habit. APPROPRIATE RELIEF The applicants have succeeded in showing that s 78(1) of the Constitution sets 18 years as the minimum age of marriage in Zimbabwe. They have also succeeded in showing that s 22(1) of the Marriage Act and any law, custom and practice which authorises child marriage is unconstitutional. That would include the Customary Marriages Act [Chapter 5:07] to the extent that it authorises child marriage. The duty of the Court is to declare legislation which is inconsistent with the Constitution to be invalid. Section 175(6)(b) of the Constitution gives the Court a discretion to make an order that is just and equitable, including an order limiting the retrospective effect of the declaration of invalidity. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court is cognisant of the immense disruption that a retrospective declaration of invalidity may cause on the persons who conducted themselves on the basis that the legislation was valid. The Court has found it in the public interest to make the order granted to have effect from the date of issue. Notwithstanding the spirited opposition the respondents put up to the application for the relief to be granted, the Court finds that no good reasons were shown for an order of costs against the respondents. The application raised questions of national importance,