11 HMA 36-18 HC 263/18 is undesirable where, as here, the applicant will have no interest in the outcome of the case on the retnrn day." see also Women & Law in Southern Afi'ica & Ors v Mandaza & Ors 15 [29] In casu, it is true that the interim relief sought in the original draft order was almost identical to the final order sought on the return day. In essence this relief was the interdict to restrain the respondents from continuing with the activities complained of. But my view is that the principle or requirement that the interim relief in an urgent chamber application should not be the same as the final relief to be sought on the return day is not cast in stone. Every case depends on its own facts. In appropriate situations it may be that the relief sought in the interim may be all that an applicant was concerned with yesterday, today and tomorrow. He may want it today on an urgent basis. That does not stop him from wanting it again on a permanent basis on the return day. If it is granted today on an interim basis, all he may want on the return day is its confirmation. All he shows in the interim, among other things, is an actual or perceived infringement of a prima (acie right, even if that right be open to some doubt. On the return day he must prove, on a balance of probabilities, an actual or perceived infringement of a clear right. It is not altogether uncommon for the court to grant interim relief, only to discharge it on the return day. Thus, I found the first respondent's objection a moot point and lacking in merit. [30] All in all, I considered that none of the first respondent's technical objections aforesaid, individually or collectively, could block the determination of the matter on the merits seeing that the applicants' complaint was a breach of fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. Section 85 of the Constitution says the fact that a person has contravened a law does not debar them from approaching a court for relief. It also says the rules of every court must ensure that they fully facilitate the right of every person to approach the court; that formalities relating to the proceedings are kept to a minimum, and that the court, whilst observing the rules of natural justice, is not unreasonably restricted by procedural technicalities. The Constitution is of course, the 15 2003 [2] ZLR 452 [H]