By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

I think I can dispose of this matter very briefly. In my appreciation os section 34C(3) it is directed against statements which, having guard to the time of theirmaking and content, my be seen as tonlign to influence the decision of the courton disputed facts. Having said so, and while it must be condeded that Annoxture“DI” was written while thse proceedings were perding, I do not see how thisdocument tends to influence the decision of this Court on any disputed fact. It isnot in dispute, but actually acknowledged, that Annexture “A” was written to theapplicant; additionally, it is not in dispute that Annexture “A” purported to retirethe applicant in the public interest, if that, too, should be regarded as a questionof fact. Annoxture “DI” does not seek or tend to influence the decision of theCourt on any of those matter. On the other hand, however and as submitted byMr. Mono, the question whether or not the applicant was properly retired in thepublic interest, which question Annoxture “DI” seeks to put to rest, is not aquestion of fact but one of law. In my judgment where a statement does not tendto establish a disputed fact and/or where it import is on matters of law, such astatement would not be excluded by section 34C (3). For this reason, I am471