I would suggest that Mr Alioni comes out to defend his views.Whereas he presented some factual information, in some instances his analyses,opinions,interpretation and conclusions were incorrect and left open to controversy or speculation ! I respect his opinions and the way he sees and interprets his views but he needs to convince us more in his arguments and there is no shame if he is wrong and can be corrected !!
Over to you Alioni !!!! -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 27/11/13, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: WestNileNet Digest, Vol 63, Issue 17io To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, 27 November, 2013, 20:12 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: WestNileNet Digest, Vol 63, Issue 12 (atibuni kefa) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:10:38 -0800 (PST) From: atibuni kefa <[email protected]> To: A Virtual Network for friends of West Nile <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [WestNileNet] WestNileNet Digest, Vol 63, Issue 12 Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ?By the way, I read the same legal opinion shared here on a face book page for a group that calls itself Barefoot Lawyers-Uganda; said to be providing online legal service. Is our brother Alioni part of that group or something fishy is going on? Otherwise someone could be held for plagiarism (Read copy cats). Counsel Alioni, If you're not part of that group, you could get interested to see how they have stolen your legal mind. Kefa On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:04 PM, Bahemuka John Toa <[email protected]> wrote: You only pay for a court order when do decide to extract it. An order once made by court takes effect immediately.? What you pay for are the filling fees for a case. Toa. Sent from my Samsung On 27 Nov 2013 19:49, "Caleb Alaka" <[email protected]> wrote: 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* >> _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________
