Thanks Emmanuel. Just two things, not from a legal point of view as such. 1. I am in Arua and I know Banks that start business at 8am and even 8:30am. So I do not really understand when you say Bans in Uganda start business at 9:00am.
1. I work for a local Government and I know the Standing Orders indicate 8:00am as official time for commencement of business. Where have you got your 9am from? Acidri Deogratias. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:55 PM, samuel andema <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Emmnanuel, > Thank you very much for your insightful piece. It is free legal education > for which I can only thank you again! Your parents did good to send you to > school. Keep it up, my brother. > Sam > > > On Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 7:27, Alioni Emmanuel Drajole < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *ANALYSIS OF THE LORD MAYOR'S IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM A STRICTLY > LEGAL POINT OF VIEW. Today I thought it prudent to look at yesterday's > issue from a PURELY LEGAL point of view with a focus on both sides, and the > possible way forward. Hopefully lessons can be learnt from the process, > both by lawyers and non-lawyers. LORD MAYOR ARGUMENTS: We start with the > Lord Mayor's arguments; 1. INJUNCTION: An injunction is merely a court > order stopping a certain act from taking place. In this case, an Interim > injunction was obtained from the Registrar of the High Court. Now, there > are 3 types of injunctions, a) Permanent Injunction, which is issues after > the trial, b) Temporary Injunction, which is issued to last as long as the > trial, c) Interim Injunction, which is issued chap chap, in this case it > was issued at 8:30am as a matter of urgency to prevent the Council meeting > from going on at 9am pending the court process due to start at 10am to > entertain another injunction hearing. This was a very bright move by the > Lord mayor's lawyers and kudos to them for their quick thinking. 2. SERVICE > OF THE COURT ORDER: Now to the controversial part, the service. Now, when > an Injunction is got, it is supposed to be served to the other party. > Service simply means delivering the order following the RIGHT PROCEDURE as > prescribed by court. In this case, the order was taken to City Hall, by the > Lord Mayor's Lawyers, who were barred from accessing the meeting venue > while the meeting was taking place. A Councillor, who was in the meeting, > then delivered this document to the chairman of the meeting but the > Minister refused to accept. No matter how absurd it might seem, the > Councillor was not the right person to Serve/ Deliver that order on the > Minister, it should have been served by either the Lord Mayor, or his > Lawyers. So legally, as far as the Law is concerned, the order was NOT duly > served onto the Minister, who in "ignorance" then proceeded to conduct the > meeting. The blame should go to the Police and other persons at the gates > of City Hall for refusing to allow the Lord Mayor's Lawyers (in this case > acting as officers of the court) from delivering that court order, hence > obstructing justice and frustrating delivery of the order, but not to the > Minister because legally, the Minister has a solid argument based on his > "ignorance" of the existence of the injunction. 3. REMEDY: In the end, the > meeting was carried out, and the Lord Mayor impeached. He still has a solid > remedy, which is to appeal against that decision within 21 days. Now, if he > appeals, then he still remains Lord Mayor for the duration of the appeal, > if he fails to appeal or apply for Judicial Review, then elections will > have to be carried out. PETITIONER ARGUMENTS: From what transpired > yesterday, tough questions were raised by this side too which questions we > cannot resolve, but we will endevour to shed some light accordingly because > the Media will focus on these arguments for the rest of the year. 1. TIME > FOR COURT BUSINESS: Court business officially starts at 9am countrywide, so > questions are being raised as to how the Lord Mayor's lawyers managed to > obtain a Court document before 9am. Now, if this is true the order was > obtained before 9am, then any business conducted before 9am is void. > However, courts also do have powers to conduct business longer than usual > e.g late into the night. 2. COURT FEES: A court case, hearing etc is null > and void if court fees are not paid, and court fees are paid into the bank. > Now, banks in this country open business at 9am. So, how were court fees > paid before 9am? If no court fees were paid, then those proceedings too are > a nullity based on this argument alone. However, in certain instances, > court can order that the fees be paid later, and uphold the legality of the > proceedings before the fees were paid. 3. CASES AGAINST GOVERNMENT: Now, > the Government Proceedings Act does not allow cases against the government > to go on Ex- Parte, (Ex- parte means with only Lawyers of one side > represented). In this case, Lawyers for the Lord Mayor went for the > Injunction in the absence of Lawyers representing the Petitioners which > made it an ex-parte proceeding. Since the other side in the case was the > Government i.e Attorney General, then if that order was granted Ex-parte, > it might be declared unlawful if challenged based on this ground because > matters against the Government cannot go on Ex-parte. 4. TIME OF SERVICE: > Officially, government business in Uganda begins at 9am, which means any > official documents to be served onto anyone in Government should be done > after 9am. It is claimed by the Lawyers for the Lord mayor that the > Injunction was served on a Government office at 8:38am which would make the > service irregular. WHAT IS THE WAY FORWARD: As we try to swim through this > legal gymnastics from what transpired yesterday, it appears, from the facts > at hand, that the most appropriate Legal remedy available for the Lord > Mayor is to apply for JUDICIAL REVIEW against the Council decisions and his > main argument will be that he was not given a RIGHT TO A FAIR-HEARING since > neither him nor his Lawyers were present in the meeting. If indeed it is > proven he was not given a chance to defend himself, then the outcomes of > the meeting could be set aside or quashed by the Court. Otherwise as it > stands now, from a Legal point of view, the meeting appears to have been > lawful and it's outcomes binding unless successfully challenged in courts > of law. If you have any questions related to this opinion, send a private > message through the inbox, email to [email protected] > <[email protected]> * > *NOTE: THIS IS PURELY A LEGAL OPINION NOT BASSED ON ANY POLITICAL > SENTIMENTS.* > *ALIONI EMMANUEL DRAJOLE* > > Top of Form > > _______________________________________________ > WestNileNet mailing list > [email protected] > http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet > > WestNileNet is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ > > The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including > attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. > _______________________________________________ > > > > _______________________________________________ > WestNileNet mailing list > [email protected] > http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet > > WestNileNet is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ > > The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including > attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. > _______________________________________________ > >
_______________________________________________ WestNileNet mailing list [email protected] http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet WestNileNet is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. _______________________________________________
