By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

unnaturally took the view that the judge in chambers was not the proper tribunalto give leave to move for judicial review and that the obvious course was toadjourn the matter so that an application could be made the following day tonominated judge. When it became apparent that Garland I wished M’s departureto be post Mr. Palmer telephoned the Home Office that the judge had expressedthe wish that M should not be removed from the United Kingdom and asked himto do his best to insure the removal did not take place. This was at approximately5.50 pm.In the absence of Mr. Palner a misunderstanding took place between counselwho was representing the Home Office and Garland J. Garland I understood thathe had been given an undertaking y counsel on behalf of the Home Office that Mwould not be removed pending the making of an application the foloowingmorning. On that bais \garland I refrained from granting leave and adjourned theapplication. However, counsel for the Home Office did not inted to give onundertaking and did not believe that he had done so. However, the order whichwas made in relation to the hearing recited the fact that.The application for leave to move for judicial review be adjourned on theundertaking by counsel for the Home Office that the applicant would not beremoved from the United Kingdom to Zaire.Unfortunately, through no one’s fault, the steps which Mr Palner had set inmotion to prevent M’s removal were unsuccessful and at 630 pm the aircraftcarrying M commenced its departure for Zaire via Paris. The aircraft landed in547