Does non payment of fees on a Court Order render it a nullity. Which law says so?
Sent from my iPhone On Nov 27, 2013, at 5:49 PM, Alioni Emmanuel Drajole <[email protected]> wrote: > It is practically unimaginable for one to obtain bank payment slit from > Court, go pay in the bank, confirm payment with the court cash office, file > the application, have it hard by a Registrar, then the Registrar gives a > ruling. where after an order is extracted and the same procedure for payment > of fees is adopted to pay fees on the order and again have it signed by the > Registrar. > All this I believe can not be done within such a minimal time lag > > thanks > > Alioni Emmanuel Drajole > > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:46 AM, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> wrote: > Send WestNileNet mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of WestNileNet digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: (no subject) (Deogratias Acidri) > 2. Re: (no subject) (Onzoma Apollo) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:38:02 +0300 > From: Deogratias Acidri <[email protected]> > To: samuel andema <[email protected]>, A Virtual Network for > friends of West Nile <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [WestNileNet] (no subject) > Message-ID: > <cak+r1zkjx8-v6syld1o9axaymizrsbsd7ajju1+xfxq-ot_...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://orion.kym.net/mailman/private/westnilenet/attachments/20131126/bd259c3b/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:44:39 +0300 > From: Onzoma Apollo <[email protected]> > To: samuel andema <[email protected]>, A Virtual Network for > friends of West Nile <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [WestNileNet] (no subject) > Message-ID: > <CAAS=X2Auhc=1QbtGk-o_EdgQEH9+a5HRRsBYVb1Z=_5f0bk...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Thanks for this update. It clarifies a lot of issues. What isn't very clear > to me is the time Government business starts and banks open (which appear > to be 8.30am these days). The details have been very enriching for me bwana > Alioni. > > > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://orion.kym.net/mailman/private/westnilenet/attachments/20131127/4e733cc7/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > WestNileNet mailing list > [email protected] > http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet > > > End of WestNileNet Digest, Vol 63, Issue 12 > ******************************************* > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________
