5 a doubt as to the meaning or scope or application of any particular article in which case then a controversy arises as to the interpretation of the Constitution which shall be referred for determination by the Constitutional Court. Similarly, any direct petition must disclose a question or controversy as to interpretation of the Constitution for this court to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction. 10 I further agree with my learned sister that where an article such as article 29 (1) of the Constitution has been interpreted under article 137 (1) of the Constitution and an appeal from the decision of the Constitutional Court has been determined by the Supreme Court, such decisions give guidance on how to apply the relevant or material article of the Constitution. For the court to consider the matter again, it must be demonstrated that another or additional controversy as to interpretation of the Constitution and in this case article 29 (1) has arisen which had not been clarified or determined by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court in the previous precedents. The Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court respectively, as courts of interpretation, should not repeat determination of questions as to interpretation other than to quote what has already been determined. It would be wrong and a move the counters the efforts of the court to clear its case backlog to saddle the Constitutional Court with constitutional petitions for determination of the meaning, scope, application or ambit of any article of the Constitution which are clear or which have been interpreted when a question as to interpretation was raised in the Constitutional Court concerning the very article or provision before. The articles of the Constitution ought to have become clearer for all other competent courts and authorities to apply without any further reference to the Constitutional Court. Moreover, the Constitutional Court has to defer handling other matters and invest the time and resources of a minimum of five Justices of Appeal to determine any petition. This obviously adversely affects the efforts and capacity of the court to clear its caseload. 15 20 25 30 In the premises, I concur with the judgment and orders proposed by my learned sister Hon. Christopher Madrama 35 Justice Constitutional Court 3