By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

made by the President revoking the grant of a right of occupancy held by theappellants, is bad in law. It is unalwaful because it was made for no good causeand was therefore, an unlawful exercise ofpower conferred by subsection (1) ofs. 10. We are, of course, full aware of the frantic efforts made by some officers ofthe Directorate of Land Development Services to solve the problem created bythem through double allocation of Plot No. 94. Be that as it may, we do not thinkthe power of revocation conferred under subsection (1) of s. 10 of the LandOrdinance was meant for the convenience of any of the officers in the Directorateof Land Development Services.Mr. Lakha has submitted that the only way to impugn the revocation order was byway certiorari and that the Attorney General must be included if such an orderwas challenged. In our view, both at the trial and at this appeal the central issuewas whether the revocation order was lawful or otherwise. Mr Lakha had bothhere and below vigorously argued as to its validity. If Mr. Lakha and/or LandOfficers had wanted the Attorney-General to support the order, they could easilyhave done so. The appellants were confronted with the revocation order whenthe respondents filed their reply and the appellants book the point that the orderwas unlawful. An application by way of certiorari is one of the means not the solemeans, of challenging such an order and we are satisfied that in thecircumstances of this case, the appellants were entitled to challenge therevocation order in the way it was done.644