By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

holding, in process, section 148 (5) (a) to be inconsistent with theConstitution.In rejecting the submission the learned judge referred tosections 4, 5 and 10 of the Basic Rights and Duties EnforcementAct.Section 4 provides:-“4. If any person alleges that any of the provisions of sections 12 to29 of the Constitution has been, is being or is likely to becontravened in relation to him, he may, without prejudice to anyother action with respect to the same matter that is lawfullyavailable, apply to the High Court for redress”.Section 5 provides in effect that on aggrieved person who goes tothe High Court for redress pursuant to section 4, shall do so byfilling a petition to the court. Then section 10 (1) provides that:-“10 (1) For the purposes of hearing and determining anypetition made under this Act including references madeto it under section s, the High Court shall be composedof three Judges of the High Court save that thedetermination whether an applications in frivolous,vexatious or otherwise fit for hearing may be made by asingle Judge of the High Court”.The learned judge, therefore took the view that although the matterbefore him was not an application by way of a petition undersection 5, he was nevertheless, entitled to deal with it pursuant tothe option under section 4 whereby the aggrieved party could takeany other action, like the appeal in the instant case. And since hewas dealing with the matter as an appeal, he was again entitled tosit as a single Judge, and so the requirement of three Judgessection 10 (1) did not arise.With due respect we cannot agree with the construction putby the judge on section 4 of the Act. We do not think that theexpression “……….. any other section …….” In the instant case, forexample, the aggrieved person was Mrs. Ojare on whose behalf itwas alleged that section 146 (5) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act108