Judgment No. CCZ 14/2017 Const. Application No. SC 263/12 principles for referral.1 It is thus not surprising that she did not, in her ruling, formulate or state the constitutional question requiring determination by this court, let alone her opinion as to whether the raising of that question is merely frivolous or vexatious. In Douglas Togarasei Mwonzora & 31 Ors v The State CCZ 9/2015 the following was stated at para (11): “The magistrate at Nyanga did not, as he should have, ask himself whether the issues raised were not frivolous and vexatious. Indeed, it appears the magistrate was not sure as to what was required of him. He made no finding that the application was not frivolous or vexatious ….” These comments that were made in the Mwonzora case (supra) apply equally in this matter. A reading of the magistrate’s ruling shows that the magistrate was not alive to the duty that befell her when the application was placed before her. She did not ask herself whether the issues raised were frivolous or vexatious. There is a conspicuous absence of a specific pronouncement by the magistrate as to whether or not in her opinion the raising of the question by the appellants was merely frivolous or vexatious. Cadit quaestio. It goes without saying that this matter was not properly referred. This court is therefore not properly seized with this matter. It thus becomes unnecessary to deal with the second issue stated earlier. It is not only necessary but very important, before the final disposition of this matter, to highlight that this is not an isolated case where a magistrate has failed to properly deal with an application for referral to the Constitutional Court. The frequency with which this court has been confronted with this shortcoming is a cause for great concern particularly as this 1 Jabulani Sibanda v The State CCZ4/17 9