10.07.2015 Views

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

24 th May 1991 informing the appellant that he had been removed by retirementin the public interest with effect from 13 th May, 1991 and that although that lettertoo had retrospective effect as Annex D.1 yet the appellant has not complainedagainst it.With due respect that argument of Mr. Mono does not appeal to us at all for twosimple reasons First we cannot say with certainty that the appellant would besatisfied with the retroactivity of Annex. A He has not had the opportunity toargue his application of Annex A. he has not had the opportunity to argue hisapplication for certiorari against that letter. So we cannot say that retroactivitywould not have been one of his grounds for seeking that it be quashed. Secondoven if for the sake of argument we take it that the appellant would not havecontested the retrospective effect of Annex A, we ask: Does his acquiescencerender the retrospective termination of employment lawful if he is right in hiscontention that such termination is had in law?There is no dispute that both letters communication the President’s decisionretrospectively However what we are concerned with here is Annex D.1 and the369

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!