4 HH 359-20 HC 2534/20 gives those reasons and shows an intention by the first respondent to proceed as earlier advised. It would be an exercise in superfluity for the applicant to ask for further reasons when these had already been given albeit in the context of engagements with MISA. The objection in limine based on the failure to exhaust domestic remedies is therefore meritless and is dismissed. The second ground of objection is incomprehensible. It makes submissions on the merits of the application. The respondent argues that in coming up with the contested accreditation categories it was merely exercising its mandate as given by the constitution, the Act and the regulations cited. The question of whether the exercise of these powers was in accordance with the law or contravened the provisions of the constitution is the precise issue to be determined in the application. It cannot be a point in limine. This objection is misconceived and must be dismissed as well. On the merits, the respondent’s case is that the additional accreditation categories were “necessitated by the revolution in the digital media sector, a phenomenon which was not foreseeable when the current AIPPA was promulgated”. Respondent contends, therefore, that the new system is intended to embrace and include the players in the digital market so that they can be duly accredited. The applicant has alleged violations of s 61 and 62 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Section 61 protects the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the media; s 62 protects the right of access to information. However, this dispute can be resolved in terms of the subsidiary law available without a resort to the constitutional rules and principles. This approach commends itself, as it accords with the principle of avoidance. This principle enjoins a court which is faced with a dispute to first attempt to address it by application of ordinary principles of law before resorting to principles of constitutional law. Where it is possible to resolve a legal dispute other than by application of the provisions of the constitution, the principle of avoidance demands that the ordinary rules of law be invoked to determine the dispute, the justification being that a resort to constitutional law procedures and remedies must be reserved for serious disputes. Thus, in the case of National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs 2000 (2) SA 1(CC), para 21, it was held that: “Where it is possible to decide any case, civil or criminal, without reaching a constitutional issue, that is the course which should be