By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

of the appellant ought to be quashed by certiorari had already been withdrawnand replaced by Annex D. 1 Mr. Mono concede that Annex A wasunconstitutional. The appellant objected condemningthe procedure of filingstatements because that procedure gave Mr. Mono an opportunity to raise apreliminary objection not contained in his counter-affidavit which gave him theright to begin addressing the Court. However the appellant was . Thepreliminary objection was heard and decided in fauour of the respondents andconsequently the application was struck outIn the course of the proceedings wide ranging submissions were made and thelearned judge made rulings on themThe position was that the learned judge made two rulings First he ruled thatAnnex D.I was admissible and had effectively substituted for Annex A thereforethe application was superfluous second he ruled that removal from officeincluding removal from office of judge under Art 110 (7) of the Constitution is aless serious matter than retirement in the public interest. The appellant wasaggrieved by the first ruling and the respondents by the second ruling Hence theappeal ad the cross-appeal. The appellant appeared before us in person with atwelve ground memorandum of appeal Mr. Mono for the respondents raised apre Liminary objection and sought to have three of the grounds of appeal andtwo of the prayers by the appellant to be struck out because he said they wereirrelevant. We disallowed that objection but reserved our reasons which we nowproceed to give We found Mr. Mono preliminary objection to be novel. Therelevance or otherwise of a ground of appeal is a proper subject of a respondent362