4 S.C. 128\02 It is not sufficient to merely allege that a particular provision is inconsistent with the Constitution without a reference to the applicant’s constitutional right.1 I shall revert to this later. In my view the impugned sections fall into two broad categories. The one category regulates the licensing process and the other category regulates the manner of operation once an applicant is successful and is operating as a broadcaster. It is common cause that the applicant has or intends to apply for a radio broadcasting service licence. I have no doubt that those impugned sections of the Act that regulate the process of obtaining a radio broadcasters licence, if unconstitutional, would or are likely to adversely affect the applicant. The applicant’s locus standi to challenge those sections is beyond question. The applicant’s locus standi to impugn those sections of the Act that regulate the operations of a licensed radio broadcaster, which it is not, is debatable. This Court is essentially an appeal court. It enjoys no original jurisdiction except in constitutional matters in terms of section 24 of the Constitution. Thus the jurisdiction and the locus standi of litigants seeking to approach this Court in terms of section 24 has to be found within the four corners of section 24 of the Constitution. This restriction does not affect a litigant that wishes to institute a constitutional application in the High Court. The provisions of section 24 do not, in any way, circumscribe the locus standi of an applicant in the High Court. In the High 1 United Parties v The Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & Ors 1997 (2) ZLR 225 (S)