10.07.2015 Views

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

in a real sense, a party to the case especially as the senior state. Attorney onbehalf of the Attorney General and representing the minister for lands Housingand urban Development, appeared and participated in the proceedings. In otherwords the Government was, in a true sense, afforded the opportunity to beheard. There was compliance with the spirit, though not with the letter, of thesub-section, and had the Attorney General been cited instead of the minister, itwould not have made the slightest difference in the conduct of the proceedings.In the instant case the summons, which was addressed to the Attorney General,was returned with an endorsement on it that:“ Attorney General is not a part of (sic) this suit. I thick this notice was to beserved to the secretary, National Housing coup.”It seems plain to us that by such endorsement the Attorney General refused, andrightly so in our view, to accept service. Thus we could find no justificationwhatsoever for the view that the Attorney General was duly served for thepurpose of the present case. Furthermore it should be noted that he saidsummons was asking the Attorney General to appear on 12.11.93 for thepurpose of mentioning the case only. But as intimated earlier. There is not theslightest evidence or suggestion that any process was ever sent out to summonthe Attorney General for the hearing of the case either on 16.6.94 when thehearing commenced or any day subsequent thereto262

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!