By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

may be effected. Neither what is stated in the Respondent’s counteraffidavitnor what fell from the lips of Mr Songoro at the Bar during thehearing of the application gives even a faint suggestion that the purportedtermination of the Applicant’s employment falls under one of thecategories of compulsory retirement mentioned in section 10 of theOrdinance, as amended by s.7 of the Pensions Law (Miscellaneousamendments) Act, 1978. When all this is taken ito account, it must becorrect to say, as I do, that the use of the word “amekustaafisha” in thePrincipal Secretary’s letter to the Applicant causes even more confusionas to exactly why the President acted in the manner he did with regard tothe Applicant’s employment.Since I am of the settled opinion that the above three grounds constitute asufficient warrant for faulting the President’s decision, I do not find it necessary toconsider Mr Nassoro’s argument that, when ordering the removal of civil servantfrom public service in the public interest, the President as bound in law to givereasons disclosing factors which, ihis opinion, constituted public interest in theparticular case. In James F. Gwagilo’s case supra, Mwalusanya J. was of theclear opinion that such reasons must be given . Though the point is not anuninteresting one, I do not, for the reason I have given, think it right to lengthenthis ruling by discussion it.494