others v. the Attorney General, Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 117 of 2004 while determining the constitutionality of the impugned provision of the then section 148(5)(e) of the CPA and section 148(5)(a)(i) of that Act, in relation to armed robbery that, Courts are bound to look at and determine on the constitutionality of the impugned provisions and not how they are applied because, failure to comply with impugned provision/s is a question of administration and not of deficiency of the provision itself. In Ndyanabo's case (supra), Mtobesya's case (supra), National Bank of Commerce v Commissioner General Tanzania Revenue Authority Civil Appeal No. 52/018, (Unreported), (Dodoma Registry), EADB vs. Blueline Enterprises Limited, Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2009, (Unreported) and Chiriko Haruna David v Kangi Alphaxard Lugora & 2 Others, Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2012 to mention a few, the Court of Appeal was settled that, until the contrary is proved, a legislation is presumed to be constitutional and also that, when the issue of interpretation arises, the constitutional construction and interpretation of a Statute should receive such construction as it will make it operative and not inoperative. t In EADB vs. Blueline Enterprises Limited (supra) the Court underscored: t "It has been established and we believe there is ample authority for saying so, that 'our first assumption in reading the words of any text is that the author is using them in their ordinary meaning'.... The Courts, therefore, under the ordinary meaning rule of statutory construction are obliged to determine the ordinary meaning of the words to be interpreted and to adopt this meaning in the absence of a reason to be rejected in favour of some other interpretation". In National Bank of Commerce v. Commissioner General Tanzania Revenue Authority (supra), the Court of Appeal held at page Page 14 of 37