By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

of advice and asserted that there was just a wrong communication of the advicewhich was later corrected.We are unable to see why the appellant makes this contention. The pure factualsituation is that only Annex D.1 refers to the Commission Annex A does not evenmention that commission but merely refers to the directions of the president. Thatwould support the contention of Mr. Mono that there was a faulty communicationrather than that there were two different pieces of advice.We honestly do not think that should detain us and particularly after we havebeen satisfied that Annex D.1 effectively and properly substituted for Annex A,Equally ground six which has been argued in the alternative has no merit. Theappellant questions the competence of the Executive to alter the advice of thecommission. Just as with ground five there is not even an iota of evidence tosupport the allegation of such alteration of the advice of the commission Anotherground which has no merit is ground twelve. The appellant has attacked thelearned judge for having introduced the novel procedure of filing statementswhich ushered in the preliminary objection that disposed of his application As wehave already narrated the learned judge wanted to hear submissions from bothsides on that matter. The next day however instead of submissions there was anagreement between both sides to file statements and the appellant had in factgone armed with his statement. The appellant cannot bow be heard to complainand this is especially so as the learned Chief justice has not as yet formulatedany rules of procedure to govern proceedings for prerogative writs and so he382