By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

emptied possible negative legal consequences, attendant to theeventuality of the Minister dismissing the appeal. Adding to thisinteresting intricate relationship, is the fact that BAWATA’s letter,to the Principal Secretary, was expeditiously deltwith, as to implylikelihood of bias, for, while the Principle Secretary’s office, receivedBAWATA’s appellate letter on 2/7/1997, by 17/7/1997, it had notbeen acted upon, and yet the clock had ticked its days off, almostto a finish my judgment, on the possible motive, I am entitled to beloud and clear, that, the so called alternative remedy was thrownwith thorns and almost impassable, and the applicants can not befaulted for the options they took. And lastly but very important,the mother Ordinance’s Constitutional status is being fractioned,and if successfully, falling with it would be any subsidiarylegislation there under, equally repugnant or inconsistent, with theConstitution, it is my submission, that the option taken by theapplicants, was flawless.I shall now come to the Temporary injunction question. Withrespect, as regards to the injunction, I think Mr. Werema, had puthis eggs in one basket, in his application, thereby perhaps, tryingto hit two, or more birds with, one stone. He argued that, since thedate of the interim exparte injunction order 17/7/1997, the Societyhad ceased in exist them if accepted, the exparte interim injunctionorder, be vacated and the current application for temporaryinjunction dismissed. It would seem, that for reasons given above,the exparte interim injunction order, was in order and cannot bevacated, for it was neither obtained by fraud, nor was the societyunlawful, during the statutory appellate period as it was capable oflegally persuing its rights. It follows that Mr. Werema, did nototherwise, and without prejudice, even reversely oppose theapplication for temporary injunction, the application for temporaryinjunction therefore seems to meet no resistance.But earnestly, and with respect, I would be fast to add that Mr.Werema was amply alert, to submit that, the Principles governingthe grant of a temporary injunction, had not been satisfied, i.e.among others, the establishment, of a Prima facie case, of breach ofduty, sitting the case R.V. KENSIMGTON & CHELSEA ROYALL.B.C. EXP. HAMMEL AND R. v. WASTMISTER CITY COUNCILEXP. AUGUSTIN (1993) I.W.L. R.760.I must confess fully, tint I had not the advantage of reading theabove case because of its in availability, but, I am of the unshaken102