By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

that the two Annexes A and D.1 talk of two different things; namely retirement inthe public interest and removal. He went further to observe that a copy of thereport of the commission is required to establish which of the two letters isauthentic, He submitted that this is a question of fact and not of law and soSection 34 C (3) does apply. Mr. Mono simply reiterated that the import of AnnexD.1 is not factual but legalWe have no doubt at all in our minds that the issue all along has never beenauthenticity but legality. The appellant did not file this application to challenge thegeniuses of Annex A in communicating the recommendation of the commissionbut to challenge its constitutionality The respondents concede though very latethat annex A was ultra vires the Constitution and issued Annex D.1 partly towithdraw Annex A and partly to straighten up the legal position. So we cannotfind any fault with LUGAKINGIRA J. in his holding that Annex D.1 was not factualbut legal and therefore Section 34 C (3) of the Evidence Act, 1967 is inapplicableThe appellant also faulted the learned judge for failing to assess the weight to begiven to Annex D.1 since the two Annexes (A and D.1) were made with a gap ofsome nine months between them The appellant repeated his allegation that bothletters purported to convey the recommendation of the commission and yetspoke of two different things and that therefore one of them must be false andthat the learned judge had to determine that issue in order to decide what weightshould be accorded to Annex D.1 as required by Section34 C (6) of the Evidence Act, 1967380