Judgment No. CCZ 7/16 34 Const. Application No. CCZ 17/15 given country is played. Indeed, it is perfectly possible, if they are prepared to open their hearts and minds in the true spirit of religious tolerance, that they might even derive some benefit from quietly observing the rites and rituals of another religion, without having to surrender their own convictions and succumb to the specific beliefs of that religion. In the event, after considerable vacillation and not without some reservation, I have come to the conclusion, on the particular facts of this case, that the applicants are not entitled to the declaratory and consequential relief that they crave. What this means is that the School is entitled to enforce its policy of compulsory chapel attendance in respect of the applicants’ daughters. However, in the event that they refuse to abide by this policy, they should not be removed from or required to leave the School, firstly, unless the School takes the fully considered view that it is entirely necessary to do so and, secondly, until they are afforded a reasonable period of time to select and relocate to another school, having regard to their individual educational needs and circumstances. As regards costs, I am disinclined to apply the normal rule that costs should follow the event and be awarded to the successful party. Indeed, the usual approach in constitutional matters is not to award costs unless the conduct of a party warrants such an order. The salient questions raised in this matter, although not entirely novel, were particularly complex and difficult to resolve. The unusual facts of the case merited comprehensive constitutional deliberation. I am also alive to the fact that this application was only launched in reaction to the School’s policy on chapel attendance