Judgment No. CCZ 8/14 6 Constitutional Court Application No. CCZ 45/14 constitutional issue, this being a function the Constitution reserves for the Constitutional Court sitting as a Bench, and 2.2 The direction sought carrying the writ into execution is predicated on a misconceived application which is a nullity, and 2.3 In any event the Supreme Court does not issue writs and to have the process of the Supreme Court issued by the Registrar of the High Court is unprecedented.” Having considered the papers and the submissions of counsel, I have come to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate, but not necessarily as a matter of legal requirement, that the issues set out above be determined by the full Bench of the Constitutional Court. However, I am satisfied that the issue of whether execution of the Supreme Court judgment, namely the eviction of Autoband from the premises, should be effected despite the noting of an appeal is urgent and should be treated as urgent. The papers as they stand clearly establish urgency. I accordingly direct that that issue be determined in the first instance by a Judge of the court a quo. I accordingly refer the issue of whether Autoband should be evicted from the premises despite the noting of an appeal to any one of the Judges in the court a quo for determination on the same papers. It is up to the Judge dealing with the matter whether to grant leave for the filing of further papers. Costs of this matter will be costs in the cause. Mtetwa & Nyambirai, applicant’s legal practitioners Venturas & Samukange, respondent’s legal practitioners