By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

As we have already said the appellant had twelve ground of appeal but it wouldappear that six of them grounds 2,3,7,9,10 and 11 are basically about one andthe same thing namely the allegedly wrong admission of Annex D.I by thelearned trial judge, The appellant submitted with al lot of force that Annex D. 1was inadmissible and that if the learned judge had rejected it then there wouldhave been only Annex A on record, which was the object o the application forcertiorari In ground to the appellant contended that the admission of Annex D.1was erroneous Yet in ground 3 he seemed to argue in the alternative that noweight should be attached to that Annex at all The appellant went on to argue inground that Annex D.1 was not written in good faith and that this was one of hisreasons why it should not have been admitted at all. His other reason forregarding Annex D.1 inadmissible were that its contents were designed topreempt the judicial process and so it was a interference in the dueadministration of justice by the Executive that was ground 10 while in ground 11he contended that Annex D.1 was bad in law because of its retrospective effect.In ground 9 the appellant was critical of the learned judge’s glassing over theissue/doctrine of estoppel which was the appellant’s other argument for theinadmissibility of Annex D.1.We are of the considered view that the consolidation of the six ground into onewould not prejudice the appellants appeal in any way and so we haveaccordingly decide to consolidate them we shall first deal with the admissibility ofAnnex D.1 as the appeal stands or falls on that grounds alone.364