8 HH 270-18 HC 1718/18 This court has already referred to the approach used by MALABA J (supra) in the case of Loveness Mudzuri & Ruvimbo Tsopodzi vMinister of Justice Legal & Parliamentary Affairs N.O. & Ors (supra). It is this court’s observation that the general trend in interpreting Constitutions is now a progressive move away from the literal approach “Literalism” towards a more “purposive” and broader approach such has that espoused in the approach taken by MALABA J in the aforementioned case. In the present case this court holds that the applicant has shown that the remarks made by the first respondent directly affected it and in the alternative infringed upon the rights of the community at large or “a significant section of the community”. There was a violation of the Constitution by the first respondent. THE REMEDY This court accordingly holds that the applicant is entitled to the relief that it sought. In the final analysis this court accepts that section 85 of the constitution provides that any persons listed in the section may approach a court alleging a breach of the declaration of rights, and the court may grant appropriate relief. Appropriate relief will in essence be the relief that is required to protect and enforce the Constitution. Accordingly, in the present case this court holds that the relief sought is appropriate as it strikes at the heart of the infringement. This court accordingly grants the relief prayed for in terms of the Amended Draft Order. Mupanga, Bhatasara Attorney, applicant’s legal practitioners