26 Judgment No. CCZ 3/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 15/18 The applicants contended that the Act should be repealed. The Court has no power to order the repeal of any legislation. Repeal of legislation is a legislative act and not a judicial act. The declaration of constitutional invalidity of legislation is the judicial act. It was not sought by the applicants. The applicants cannot seek to have the validity of the Act impugned whilst also asking for an order that they be paid US$420 000 payable only in terms of the Act. As such, the main application has no prospects of success because what the applicants seek is not grantable. The third respondent took the point that the dispute in question is res judicata. An examination of the founding affidavit on which the application in CCZ 25/13 was based shows that there are material differences in the nature of the causes of action pleaded. Although vaguely pleaded, the applicants’ cause of action in CCZ 11/18 was that s 3(3) of the Act contravenes the provisions of s 67(4) of the Constitution. They did not, of course, say which of their fundamental rights were infringed by the alleged invalidity of s 3(3) of the Act. On that assumed invalidity, the applicants went on to pray for non-grantable reliefs. In respect of CCZ 25/13 the first applicant did not plead a cause of action. All he did was to state the provisions of the Act and the Constitution before praying for an order that it be paid the money payable to political parties that met the qualification requirements prescribed by s 3(3) of the Act for entitlement to payment. The plea of res judicata raised by the third respondent and ipso facto the prayer for costs against the applicants on the scale of legal practitioner and own client scale cannot succeed. COSTS