Judgment No. CCZ 10/2018 Const. Application No. CCZ 80/2016 Jurisdiction of the Court The present application has been mounted in terms of s 167(2)(d) of the Constitution. As is expressly stipulated in that provision, this Court is endowed with exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the President or Parliament has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation. Mr Madhuku, for the applicants, submits that the merits of the matter have no bearing on whether a constitutional question has been raised to found the jurisdiction of this Court. All that the applicants need to do is to demonstrate the existence of a constitutional obligation and to allege that the obligation in question has not been fulfilled. The merits of the application fall into an entirely different sphere. In this regard, s 167(2)(d) does not differentiate between procedural and substantive obligations. Mr Uriri, for the second respondent, accepts that the applicants have raised a constitutional question. He contends, however, that it does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court. The applicants have challenged the manner in which the impugned Act was passed. Relying on pronouncements in King & Ors v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control & Anor 2006 (1) SA 474 (SCA) at 15-17, to the effect that procedural requirements that are prerequisites to validity do not impose constitutional obligations, Mr Uriri submits that the manner of enacting legislation falls within the doctrine of legality in relation to which the High Court enjoys review jurisdiction. It is therefore that court that the applicants should have approached in the first instance. DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS e-mail: veritas@mango.zw; website: www.veritaszim.net Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. 7