By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

The appellant went further to point cut that the chief Secretary had written on 31 stOctober 1991 Annex X saying that the Government was not going to engageitself in a discussion of constitutional matters The appellant argued that was areference to the contents of Annex B.1 and B.2 and that it necessarily impliesacknowledgement of receipt of the two letters. Mr. Mono did not really have areply to that contention. He merely said that Annex B.1 might have been receivedbut that there is no evidence that Annex B/2 was also received However Mr.Mono cannot deny the fact that the respondents pleadings bind them to theacknowledgement of receipt of the lettersThe learned Judge was right when he said that there was no evidence that thetwo letters were replied to. And that is precisely the argument of the appellantthat he received no reply at all but that some six months later and after the matterwas already in the court, the chief Secretary signed under his hand Annex D.1was not bona fide. Mr. Mono’s response was that the delay is not evidence ofhad faith. He stood his ground even in the face of the stark fact that Annex D.1came when the matter was already in Court.If it were mere delay in writing Annex D.1 we would have readily gone along withMr. Mono submission However the situation is complicated by the letter of 31 stOctober 1991 which the very Chief Secretary wrote to the appellant declaringthat the Government had no intention of opening a legal discussion concerningthe various articles of the Constitution which the appellant had cited in his letters.As we have indicated above the appellant cited various articles of the constitution366