By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

2. that the application has no right of reference simply because they hadalready taken their terminal benefitsMr. Abubadar’s address was very brief. He supported the decision of the Boardsaying that it was on the whole fair. He implicitly concede that a certainconversation had taken place between the members of the Board ad therepresentatives of the Authority In his opinion that was objectionable but not fatalespecially he said considering that the applicants were subsequently accorded afull hearing by the Board. And as we have already seen it was also his opinionthat this application was premature and incompetent.The tete ar tete between members of the Board and the representatives of theAuthority was doubtlessly improper disconcerting and objectionable Accordingto the applicants that discussion took some twenty minutes the subject of thatconversation was not revealed to the applicants and this court is not in a positionto know for sure what it was that was discussed in the absence of the applicantsThe respondents have not filed any counter affidavit and in case of the Board ithas gone a step further and refused to acknowledge the receipt to the summonsthat the representatives of the Authority most probably make somerepresentations bearing on the termination during the private conversation is notsimply the applications overwrought imagination that no doubt constituted adeparture from the essential principles of natural justice and indeed it isimmaterial in the eye of the law that the discussion did not work to the prejudiceof the applications or that it may not have influenced the decision of the BoardBecause no one who had lost a case will believe he has been fairly treated if theother side has access to the tribunal behind his back it is quite rue that tribunalsliked the conciliation Boards enjoy a certain degree of informality but the courtshave always stressed that should not operate to offend the principles of natural.justice329