By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

of this section ;and (b)to determine any question arising any the case any person which isreferred to it in pursuance of subsection (3) thereof, and may make such orders, issuesuch writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose ofenforcing or securing the enforcement of, any of the provisions of the said foregoingsection or section to the protection of which the person concern is entitle. (3) if anyproceedings in any court other than the high court or the court of appeal any questionarises as to the contravention of any of provisions of the said foregoing forthwithreleased, after suffering imprisonment for part of the day. It not without interest to notthat Braithwaite j. on June 26, 1975, gave reasons in writing for his decision. In this heexpressed the view that upon the evidence before him, the appellant had made out aprima facie case that his right under section 1 (a) of the constitution not to be deprived ofhis liberty without due process of law had been contravened .the substantive motion , however, did not come before Braithwaite j. but before scott jafter un intermittent hearing extending over 13 days he dismissed the motion on july 23,1975, and ordered the appellant to serve the remaining six days of his sentence ofimprisonment. His ultimate ground for dismissing it was that the high court had nojurisdiction under section 6 to entertain the motion since to do so would in his view,amount to the exercise by one judge of the high court of an appellate jurisdiction overanother judge of the high court . This would be inconsistent with the “equal power,authority and jurisdiction “ which by section 5(2) of the supreme court of judicature act1962 is vested in all the judges of the high court. Despite his disclaimer of jurisdiction toentertain the motion Scott J. Did express his own view that the appellant not only hadbeen guilty of contempt of court but also had been told with sufficient particularity thenature of the contempt of which he was accused .From the dismissal of his originating motion the appellant to the court of Appeal; butthat appeal was not heard until April 1977. In the meantime he had sought and obtainedfrom the Judicial committee special leave to them against the original order of Maharaj J.committing him to prison for contempt of court .By July 1976 this appeal had beenheard and determined in his favour by the judicial committee upon the ground whichwhere stated later in their judgment of October 11, 1976. so by the time appeal from thejudgment of Scott j. on the originating motion come to be decided by the court of appeal51