facts? If we accede to the respondent’s submissions and send the matter back to the Industrial Court without determining the issue that is being canvassed, the applicant is entitled to and would certainly again raise the constitutional issue in defence. This would result in circuitous and back-and-forth process that should not be countenanced in litigation. [13] Earlier on I mentioned that the merits of the matter are not before us, and that we must consciously eschew venturing into same. To do so would be in breach of the exclusivity principle which is now entrenched in our law. A determination that the doctrine of avoidance is applicable or not cannot, in my view, be made without an evaluation of the merits by this court, even if only cursorily. [14] Perhaps more significantly, Section 151(2) (a) of the Constitution places responsibility upon the High Court “to enforce the fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by this Constitution” and “to hear and determine any matter of a constitutional nature.” What this suggests to me is that this court is enjoined to embrace every opportunity to breathe life into this relatively new constitution and give meaning to the rights that it confers. To routinely uphold the doctrine of avoidance 11