Judgment No. CCZ 10 /2015 4 Const. Application No. 8/2014 The order of the Supreme Court that the applicant sought to impugn was to the following effect: “1. The decision by the respondent (applicant in casu) to refuse to grant a certificate nolle prosequi to the applicant be and is hereby set aside. 2. The respondent is directed and ordered, within 5 days of the date of this order, to issue a certificate to the applicant (respondent) that he declines to prosecute the fraud charge at the public instance. 3. The respondent shall pay the costs of this application.” The applicant explained the nature of the application in paragraph 3 of his founding affidavit:“3. This is an application calculated at upholding the independence of my office as guaranteed by s 260 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. This Honourable Court is implored to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and powers in terms of s 167(1) and 176 of the Constitution and declare as follows:- …”’ The declaratory orders that he wished to seek before this Court are outlined in his draft order and included the following: “Whereupon, after reading documents filed of record and hearing counsel, it is hereby ordered as follows:1) 2) 3) 4) …… ….. ….. The order of the Supreme Court in the matter between Telecel Zimbabwe (Private) Limited v Attorney-General No. SC 1/2014 be and is hereby set aside.” For the reasons outlined below, the court found that counsel for the applicant properly made the concessions referred to.