By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

I heard long and interesting arquments from both sides but at this juncture I willdo no Moro than summarize these arquments. Mr. Mono’s central arqument wasthat Annexture “A” had been effectively withdrawn and substituted by Annoxture“DI” and that this had the effect of removing cause of action. He also told thecourt that in taking this step the Government had positively responded to theapplicant’s complaint and prayer by rectiying as he put it , “the mischief ormisdirection or non-direction or illegality” inherent in Annexture “A”. He submittedthat the applicant’s application had consequently become academic and shouldbe struck off. In reply the applicant contented that Annexturo “DI” wasinadmissible by virtu. Of the provisions of section 34C (3) of the evidence Act,1967. Further, he submitted that by virtuo of the provisions of Section. 123 of thesame Act, the Government was stopped from abandoning Annoxture “A” anddenying the truth of it. Finally, he assorted that Annexture ‘DI” was not issued ingood faith, first, because his letter in annoxture “B2” “B!” and woro not replied toand, secondly, because he was not furnished with the commission’s report toenable him weighthis rights under the sastitution. The applicant referred to othermatters, some with a boaring on the note of the application, upon which I may becomplied to comment. I also prepose to address Mr. , Monos reaction to theapplicant’s arguments at the appropriate stage later.465