By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

that the learned Chief justice as well as the Executive ought to have known thatAnnex A was not in compliance with the Constitution. We are equally persuadedto believe that the Executive wrote it and were determined to stick to it becauseprobably, they were convinced that I was in the best interest of the appellant weshall elaborate on this at the appropriate juncture later on in this judgment.Suffice it to say here that Annex D.1 was not made in bad faith We may as wellpoint out here that we have also disposed of the first ground of appeal that thelearned judge erred in holding that Annexes B.1 and B.2 had not been received.The receipt of those Two Annexes is not part of the consolidated six groundsconcerning the admissibility of Annex D.1 However, it has been associated withadmissibility on the issue of bad faith which we have also disposed ofTo go back to Annex D.1 the appellant contended that it is bad in law since it hasretrospective effect and that therefore it should not have been admitted inevidence by the learned judgeThe appellant pointed out that while Annex D.1 was dated 21 st February 1992 itcited the date of the removal from the office of judge as 13 th May 1991 Theappellant referred us to the High Court of Tanzania decision in Shipping line v. R.(1979) LR.T.n 61 at 246 in which it was held inter alia that termination ofemployment with retrospective effect is bad in law. The appellant submitted thatthe situation is worse in the case of employment such as that of a judge which isprotected by the Constitution. Mr. Mono pointed out that Annex A was written on368