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.

The appellant then concluded by referring us to the three requirements of dueadministration of justice as enunciated by Lord DIPLOCK in Attorney – Generalv. times Newspapers Ltd(1973) All E.R 54 at 72The third requirement is material here and we quote itOnce a dispute has been submitted to aCourt of Law they (citianan ) should be ableTo rely on there being no usurpation by anyOther person of the function of that court toDecide it according to law Conduct which isCalculated to prejudice any of these threeRequirements or to undermine the publicConfidence that they will be observed isContempt of Court.The appellant contended that by introducing Annex D.e at that point of time theExecutive was usurping the judicial function of the court and so that letter waspalpably inadmissible .Mr. Mono had two replies to that. First he said that Annex D.1was not calculatedto preempt the judicial process on the contrary it was meant to expedite it. Courtshe pointed out have in consider justifiable issues. Then Mr. Mono submitted thatAnnex D.1 was still capable of being challenged in Court. All that the appellanthad to do was to amend the pleadings.The crucial question here is whether or not the Executive’s release of Annex D.1was or was not calculated to prejudice any of the three requirement and inparticular, the third one quoted above. How did the Executive by Annex D.1374

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!