This makes it clearer Caleb
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Caleb Alaka <[email protected]> wrote: > It is not the payment of fees on the document which makes the Order an > Order. It is the pronouncement of the Judicial officer which amounts to a > Court Order. Even if not extracted, it remains an Order of Court. And once > it is issued. Whether, irregular or not. One has to obey it. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 27, 2013, at 8:33 PM, samuel andema <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There we are! Let the learned fellows have there thing as we watch. > > Thanks. > > Sam > > -------------------------------------------- > > On Wed, 27/11/13, Caleb Alaka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Subject: Re: [WestNileNet] WestNileNet Digest, Vol 63, Issue 12 > > To: "Alioni Emmanuel Drajole" <[email protected]>, "A Virtual > Network for friends of West Nile" <[email protected]> > > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Date: Wednesday, 27 November, 2013, 19:47 > > > > 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, > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________
