By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Without going into his locals standing it is glaring us that whatever Mr. Bwire hadsaid cannot be christenedEvidence for that matter Mr. Marando agreed that there was no evidenceadduced even on behalf of the respondent Mr. Marando submitted that theproceedings before the High court was a nullity and prayed that they be quashed.Mr. Matata was very affirmative that the proceedings were sound and proper. Hesaid that what had been known as prerogative writs are now provided for by theLaw Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous provisions) Ordinance, cap.360 as amended by Act No. 55 of 1968 Section 18 thereof empowers the chiefjustice to make rule of court prescribing the procedure to be followed. He pointedout that there have not yet been made. He then went on to describe theprocedure now in practice and that is the file statements in support of anapplication for an order. Eventually Mr. Matata bowed to the directions of thecourt that affidavit are necessary and he was positive that he had filed one atthe High court. He was given time to dig it out from the recerd. When the courtre-convened Mr. Matata humbly but rightly so concede that there was no affidavitand that the proceedings before the High court were null and void.As properly pointed out by Mr. Marando the application which is the subject ofthis appeal involved matters of both fact and law The question of law waswhether or not the appellant could be compelled to extend the duration of theimport license. This called for legal submission of advocates. But that stagecould only be arrived at after the court court had been satisfied tha an importlicence had as a matter of fact. Been issued to the respondent that it had expired311