4 HH 307-18 HC 4863/18 body of persons whether incorporated or unincorporated”. The definition is wide and not restrictive. A fortiori, the applicant can approach this court in terms of the same section because the provision refers to a Court and not just the Constitutional court. The applicant in casu is juristic in nature unlike the usual run of trusts which are not juristic persona as they are constituted of property which is then managed for the benefit or advantage of beneficiaries. Contrary to Mr Kanengoni’s submission as to some sinister motive by the applicant in bringing this application, I would hold that the applicant established its locus standi to bring this application in terms of s 85 (1) (a) of the Constitution. I dismiss any insinuations of mala fides or lack of bona fides on the part of the applicant because l find none established. The applicant’s objectives in terms of its deed of trust have been set out hereinbefore and there was no challenge that the application fell outside its objectives. The applicant has also given an overview and history of its work in regard to election related processes including petitioning Parliament on election issues. The applicant avers that it has collaborated with the respondent in the respondent’s election related programmes and activities. It is noted that in a letter, annexure E to the applicant’s papers, dated 11 May, 2018, the respondent’s chairperson implored the applicant to “scrutinize the provisional voters roll as you wish and hopefully share with us your findings in order for us to make good any issues requiring amendment”. The juristic nature of the applicant and the applicants activities are therefore acknowledged by the respondent. It therefore stands to reason that the applicant qualifies to be “any person” within the meaning of “any person”, as envisaged in s 85 (1) (a) of the Constitution as read with s 332. Being a person, albeit juristic, the applicant can act in its own interests. Its interests transcends therefore to the realization of its objectives which as already observed dovetail with the promotion, fulfilment and safeguard of fundamental human rights and freedoms in the form of political rights as given in s 67 of the Constitution. Mr Maanda also submitted that the locus standi of the applicant was further based on or informed by s 85 (1) (d) of the Constitution. The said section entitles any person acting in the public interest to similarly approach a court in circumstances as would entitle any person to petition the court relying on s 85 (1) (a). To the extent that l have dealt with the circumstances of justifying an approach to a court, I refrain from repeating the same save to incorporate them by reference. In the celebrated case of Mudzuru and another v The Minister of Justice, Legal & Parliamentary