8 HMA 36-18 HC 263/18 [18] In the instant case, there was certainly an apparent lack of skill and precision in the drafting of the certificate of urgency. For example, in one portion it referred to a rally planned for" ... tomorrow 1511' June 2018 ... "when the cetiificate itself was only executed on 18 June 2018. In other potiions the certificate confused applicants for respondents. In yet other portions whole words or phrases were missing. In this regard the first respondent picked on a sentence that read: "This is a matter of great importance as it directly [?] the rights of children as well as the freeness and faimess of the 2018 elections." Plainly the word " ... affects ... " after " ... directly ... " was omitted. [19] However, in spite of the evidence of sloppy drafting, I did not consider the defects fatal. In The Sheriff of the High Court v Majoni & Ors 11 I said that silly and hmmless typing errors should not impede the determination of the real dispute between the patties: see also Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Transport & Ors 12 . In the present case, the defects in the certificate of urgency that the first respondent complained of were inconsequential. I pardoned them. [20] In substance, the certificate of urgency informed why the matter had to be heard on an urgent basis given that the perceived abuse of the rights of children and their teachers at the hands of the respondents was said to be on-going and disruptive of school life. Mr Co/tart, for the applicants, explained the problems associated with preparing comi docUinents in a hurry, particularly given that the cettificate of urgency in question had been executed by a legal practitioner from another law firm. [21] The first respondent's third point in limine was that the matter was not urgent. It was m·gued that the mainstay of the applicants' complaint was the report by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission the findings of which had been based on events almost a year old. Mr Mushangwe 's point was that the need to act had arisen when the perceived violations had occuned way back then. For support, he refened to the well-known and 11 HH 689-15 12 2014 [2] ZLR 44 [H]