10.07.2015 Views

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Songoro urged me to hold that the President’s decision is proper and inaccordance with the law of the land. He forcefully contended that theparamount words in the Principal Secretary’s letter, as far as the reasonfor the President’s decision is concerned, are the words “ amekustaafishakwa Manufaa ya Umma”. According to the learned Senior State Attorney,the Applicant had no right in law to be given more information than that.Counsel urged me to hold that the President acted within his powers, andthe procedure he applied was correct and sufficient. It seems to me that itis desirable, if not necessary, that some of the general principles wich Iconsider to be relevant to the determination of the application now beforeme should be distinctly set out. In my opinion, the following are theprinciples:(1) The common law principle that a civil servant is dismissible atpleasure (see Shenton V. Smith (1895) A.C. 229 and Gould vStuart (1896) A.C. 575) is not part of the law of this country: seesection 36 (2) of the Constitution as read together with section 26(1) of the said Constitution, and James F. Gwagilo’s case supra. Inthis country, civil servants are dismissed for misconduct only: seesection 19 (2) of the Civil service Act, 1989. when a civil servant isdismissed cause must be assigned. The English common lawdoctrine of “service at pleasure” has, as, I hope, amplydemonstrated above, no place in the law of this country. The saying490

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!