Judgment No. CCZ 10 /2015 11 Const. Application No. 8/2014 Thus, in as much as the application failed to meet the test for a direct approach to this Court, it meets the same fate in relation to any notion (expressed or implied) of an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court. 2. Costs As indicated at the beginning of this judgment, the parties made submissions on the question of costs. Advocate Fitches, for the respondent, urged the court to order costs against the applicant on the legal practitioner and client scale. He argued that this was because, (i) the application was wrongly filed before this Court, (ii) the respondent had been unnecessarily ‘dragged’ to court in order to defend the application, and (iii) the respondent had been put to the cost of preparing opposing papers thereto. Mr Fitches relied for these arguments on the case of Mudzimu v Municipality of Chinhoyi & Anor at page 16(H),1 where the following dictum is cited from the leading case of Nel v Waterberg Landbouwers Ko-operative Vereeniging2; “The true explanation of awards of attorney and client costs not expressly authorised by statute seems to be that, by reason of special considerations arising either from the circumstances which give rise to action or from the conduct of the losing party, the court in a particular case considers it just by means of such order, to ensure more effectually than it can do by means of a judgment for party and party costs that the successful party will not be out of pocket in respect of the expense caused to him by the litigation” 1 2 1986 (1) ZLR 12 (HC) 1946 AD 597