By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

The appellant by then had already written another letter to the P.S. (Estabs) on25 th July 1991 (referred to as Annex B.1 ) in which he also challenged theconstitutionalityof the contents of Annex A The letter was answered afterreferring to various other communications thus therefore in view of theexplanation of the Registrar Court of Appeal in his aforesaid letter I am sorry Ihave nothing to add. That reply was contained in a letter of 6 th August 1991which concluded by wishing he appellant all the best That was intended to put aseal on two matters: the demand for a copy of the report of the Commission andthe challenged constitutionality of the contents of Annex A namely removal byretirement in the public interest.However the appellant was not satisfied. So he wrote another letter (Annex A tothe G.J on 16 th August 1991. That letter was not replied to So he sent anotherletter to the Chief Secretary on 25 th September 1991 In reply to the latter theChief Secretary in his letter of 31 st October 1991 reiterated thusMadhumuni ya barua hii ni kukuarifu kuwa serikali sasa inchukukia suala lakokama limifikia mwisho (finality) na kuwa hakutakuwepo tena kuandikiana baruakati yako na Viongozi wa SerikaliIn short he declared the matter finally close. Realizing that his efforts hitheretowere not getting him anywhere the appellant turned to the Courts. He filed anapplication (High court Misc. Civil Application No. 264 of 1991) for leave to applyfor an order of certiorari against the P,S. (Estabs) and the Attorney General as360