Judgment No. CCZ 10/14 13 Constitutional Application No. SC 226/10 Did The Applicant As Former Occupier Have Lawful Authority To Occupy, Hold Or Use That Land? The applicant contends that the letters from the late Vice President Msika and from the Ministry of Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement are “lawful authority” entitling him to remain on the gazetted land. I am not persuaded by this argument. The letters from the late Vice President do not constitute ���lawful authority” in terms of the Act. I shall deal with this submission in some detail when I deal with the issue of what constitutes “lawful authority” later in this judgment. The Applicant’s Defence Of A Mistake Of Law The applicant’s defence of a mistake of law is frivolous and vexatious. If the applicant was serious about this defence, he would have left the farm when he was charged. The fact that the applicant is still occupying the farm makes nonsense of this defence. Is The Definition of “Lawful Authority” Contained In the Act Ultra Vires the Constitution? In my view, the definition of “lawful authority” in s 2 of the Act is intra vires s 16B(6) of the Constitution. Again I propose to deal with this issue when I deal with the issue of the meaning to be ascribed to s 2 of the Act, which defines what constitutes “lawful authority”. I am satisfied that at the close of the State case there was before the court enough evidence to put the applicant on his defence.