By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

of which was annexed to the affidavits, the notice itself showed that it had in factbeen signed “for the Director of Immigration services”. I pointed this out to Mr.Mchora and he later amended the applicants affidavits. He also altered the entirestructure of the case. Originally the applicants were three, viz., AJIT KUMARGORDHAN, MRS BARTI GORDHAN and UDAY KUMAR GORDHAN. Mr.Mchora asked to withdraw the latter twos’ applications and this was done, so thatwe now remain with only AJIT KUMAR GORDHAN as the applicant in thisapplication. Secondly, in its original form the application was against the Ministerfor Home Affairs (First Respondent) and the Director of Immigration against thefirst respondent, the Minister for Home Affairs. This was granted and now theapplication is against the Director of Immigration only as the respondent.On 25.4.91 also, I posed to Mr. Mchora the point whether in an application forprerogative orders such as the present one, other reliefs or remedies such as thesecond one referred to above, i.e. an order for temporary suspension, which ineffect aounts to an order of temporary injunction, could be joined, I asked him tolook into the point and give me his view on it on 2.5.91 On 2.5.91 Mr. Mchorainformed me that his research had not established anything, one was or theother, on the point. He submitted, however, that for the ends of justice, I shouldgrant the second prayer in the Chamber summons also so that the applicant isenabled to be present in the country to prosecute this application – if leave to fileit is granted.501