By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

We again agree with the learned judge that all that the Executive did was ocorrect the error glaringly obvious on the face of Annex A and that cannot besubjected to estoppel. As for the last point of the appellant regarding thealteration of the advice of the commission of judges we shall deal with it at theappropriate juncture.The appellant also contended strongly that Annex D.1 was inadmissible underSection 32 C (3) of the Evidence Act, 1967 He said that where his applicationpresupposed that existence of Annex A the respondents through Annex D.1denied that So the existence of Annex A, he contended was a fact in issue As theauthor of Annex D.1 was person interested in the proceedings he argued thatletter was inadmissible under Section 34 C (3) of the Evidence Act 1967.The learned judge dealt with section 34 C (3) at some considerable Length. Hewas of the view that to quote his own words the provision deals with statementwhich having regard to the time of their making and content, may be seen astending o influence the decision of the Court on disputed facts. The learned judgethen went on the examine Annex D.1 and formed the opinion that it did not dealwith facts but sought to straighten up a legal issue namely, termination in publicinterest or removal under Article 110 (7) of the Constitution He then came to theconclusion where a statement does not tend to establish a disputed fact and/orwhere its import is on matter of law such a statement would not be excluded bySection 34 C (3)Now the appellant avers that Annex D.1 did not address itself to a point of law asthe learned judge erroneously held but to a point of fact. The appellant point out379