By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

The sub-section requires that the Attorney General be summoned as a party inthe proceedings which involve the interpretation of the constitution with regard tobasic rights and freedoms enshrined in the construction.Mr. Mesa seemed to doubt the applicability of this provision to the facts of thepresent case which in his view, did not raise the question of interpretation in thesense of clarifying some provisions of the constitution. With due respecthowever, we think that this argument is misguided. The case seeks to challengethe constitutionality of Government Notice No. 41 of 1982 which, it is alleged, isdiscriminatory in its effect and which denied the respondents their right to beheard before the appellant corporation, their land lord, effected rent increasesunilaterally and arbitrarily. We are of the settled view that these are matterswhich fall squarely within the purview of the sub-section, and we can find nojustification for counsel’s misgivings on that point. It seems that a question mightarise whether or not claims of unconstitutionality can be remedied or redressedupon application, as in this case, for certiorari and prohibition, but hat of course isa different matter; the point here is that the issue of constitutionality of asubsidiary legislation was raised, in which case sub-section (2) above quotedwas applicableThe pertinent now, therefore, is whether or not the trial was conducted incontravention of section 17A (2) of cap. 360 as amended by Act No. 27 of 1991.For the appellant corporation it is alleged that it was, and the Attorney General is258