After perusing documents filed of record and hearing counsel, the unanimous decision of the Court was that the matter be dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.

The appellants approached the Court on what they term an appeal from the Supreme Court. Section 167(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) 2013 (“the Constitution”), establishes the Constitutional Court as the highest court in all constitutional matters. Section 167(1)(b) of the Constitution provides that the Constitutional Court decides only constitutional matters and issues connected with decisions on constitutional matters. A constitutional matter is defined, under section 332 of the Constitution, to mean a matter in which there is an issue involving the interpretation, protection or enforcement of the Constitution. The issue raised before a court will be sufficient evidence of the existence of a constitutional matter to the extent that its determination requires the interpretation, protection or enforcement of the Constitution.

The appellants approached the Court in terms of section 167(5) of the Constitution which provides:

“(5) Rules of the Constitutional Court must allow a person, when it is in the interests of justice and with or without leave of the Constitutional Court –

(a) To bring a constitutional matter directly to the Constitutional Court;

(b) To appeal directly to the Constitutional Court from any other court;

(c) To appear as a friend of the court.”

As the appellants approached the Court before the promulgation of the Constitutional Court Rules 2016 (S.I.61 of 2016) it fell upon the Court to decide whether the Supreme Court arrived at the judgment purportedly appealed against upon determination of a constitutional matter as defined in section 332 of the Constitution.

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court in terms of Rule 32 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (“the Rules”).

The background to the matter is aptly captured in the Supreme Court judgment which is the subject of the intended appeal. The applicants were employed as Section Managers by the respondent at T.M. Supermarket, Lobengula Street, in Bulawayo. In 20