joseph nyongo and 5 others vs wilbroad peter slaa and another 2 1997 tzca 46 26 september 1997

IN THE COHRT OP nTPEAI- rA*«3/^'IA ",*3 Jni-r. ?.i . ( CORAM: ,^?-.L^L,'. /.A .. l.:."J;.'V ', J.-,.. An'1 SA-Vi T ■A. ) CIVIL , J ? L n L f- C . 29 OF 1937 ^ ^ - r£ re•**.A *• wwr\: 3. SIFON’I ZSPHANIA . . . A?rELI~ANT5 3A~.t-A3A3 OA^^ X S. JOSEPH "YONGO X. ?,\SC/J, 3OK HA 1 , 0’ d x. wrLaaoArr pe t s ? . s l a a . RKOPONOEN’TLS 2 , THE HO?:. ATTORNEY GENE?j J. ( A p p e a l f r o m t h e P u l L n g / ’d e c i s i o n and O r d e r s o f the High C o u r t o f T a n za n ia at -rusha) ' N'eha 1 l a , -T• ) dated the 25th day of November, 1996 in ■Mi s e e 11 a p e o u 5 C i v i l Ca'jle No. 9 of 1995 JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT L'VBUVAt On 2 9 t h - I c t o b e r , 199S, E lections v » r e Vxsld i n the courtrv. Th i s involved Parliam entary and P r e s i d e n t i a l election s. In the K a ra tu c o n s t i t u e n c y , the firs t re^pon^cnt, Or. VJilbr oa* Te t e r Slaa, a candidate spons r>rod hy tno p o l i t i c a l c a r t y Ghana cr.a “ enokr - jsi pi n.a “ n c r ^ o l e ? , corr-on". y < n X'-'v by i t s acjronyra CH.Ot.V. /.3 s d e c l a r e ^ t s bo the e 1sc to ^ m i r r o r of ?arliam<?nt. The j ~ r - e l l an t s a? r e g i s t e r s voters, '.ero i “ s a t i s f i ed w i t h the -"su its o-' the o l e c t i o n . They f i l e d -;n e l e c t i o n p etition in t he Hi gh C o u r t at Arusha i.e. .Vi see 1 I aneou s C i v i l Cause No. ? of '’ 995. r rorr t he plea^in o:, *-h*» : ti-jn sought among o t h e r s , th-? -•allowin g reliefs:- Pi m , the e l e c t i o n resu lts in Karatu Con-sti t u e r c v t"* he d e c ! arc-1 n u l l ar.d v o i d . Secondly, an o r d e r fo r a scrutiny by way o f re-count. The H o n o u r a b l e the Attorney G e n e r a l was j o i n e d is the second r e s p o n d e n t among t h e p a r t i * r s . Before trie tria l c-' nr .erce i , tr.e - - o ^ r t or-.ere.-! c.-.c - i S ’-ic regarding scrutiny t o be tried firs t. during t he tria l on the issue on s c r u t i n y , the p etition ers, the appellants in this appeal; applied for leave t o amend p a r a g r a p h C i n t he p e t i t i o n regarding reliefs. As a r e s u l t , p a r a g r a p h C was amended by s u b s t i t u t i n g t he w or ds " s c r u t i n y by way o f recount for the w o r d s " "recount of the v o t e s " . At the c o n c l u s i o n of the tria l on t h e issue of scrutiny, the learned judge (N challa, J.l h e l d —£*v»-fc^the r e l i e r sought fo r scrutiny by way o f recount o f votes we s - ^ F S Wr u e i v s — in c om peten t in law. The a p p l i c a t i o n was t h e r e f o r e dism issed. This appeal is against the o r d e r o f dism issal. In this appeal, the appellants a re represented by Mr. Mu se i , learned Counsel. The f i r s t respondent, Tr. W ilbroad P e t e r Slaa, is r e p r e s e n t e d by Mr. Ma i r a and Xr. MiraTibo, learned advocates. \ The se cond respondent, t he Honourable the A t t o r n e y General, is *— ^ represented by Mrs. Lyimo, learned Principal State Attorney, seven p r i n t Terror in'-1urn o f appeal vn s filed - In paragraphs 5 and of the ~e.~o r ^r^urr o f apoeal it is stated: 6. The H o n o u r a b l e tria l Judge m i s d i r e c t e d him self in l aw i n discrim in atin g against the v o t e r p etition er rescectin g the relief of scrutiny under S e c t i o n 112 o f the E l e c t i o n s A c t v ?. 1 of 1905. That the Honourable tria l j u dg e fu rth er erred in l av; i r. w r o n g l y i n t o r pee t i n g and applying the t^rrr 1 SC?" TINY1 ■'3 pro. the tota lity of «h .« it 1= o u r , i , v that » w central Issue is raise, in this ,*•■ »:. That I s , whether the relie f sought, n a m el y , scrutiny bv way ot recount of votes Is avai la b le un , « r the E l e c t i o n s ;,ct, 1935. Mr. * u s e i , . learned - *--- -■ - - r ~ J — " " »"!■»■I .... I MW11 arm i r .... .i —— Course*, s t - --------------- - in l aw in not o r d e r i n g a recount of votes as so ug ht in the reliefs. The r e a s o n he state., »,» that w hile it is concede, that the E l e c t i o n s Act, 1985 W s not p r o v id e for the recourt of votes as a r e l i e f in an e l e c t i o n petition , s till he m a i n t a i n e d , the r e l i e f could be . j r a r t c d by a n r l y l n g the E n g l i s h law. m - be the Court to the book by support or th is su bm ission ne ----- • • ■ • ^ -£ cn eCl e l d or. P arliam en tary the d i s t i n.gui s n e d a> - ---------------------------------------- _ . t- r-.^-o v l’ -’ ' - e i n "scru tin y" is E lection s, Third E d i t i a n r » f e T ^ a - ^ — _ r l~ described as f o l l o w s : — "S cru tin y is the term used to d escrib e a review in g of b a llo t papers follo w in g an order of the Court. The p etitio n er, respondent, th eir C ou n sel, s o lic ito rs and agents are at lib e rty to be present at the in sp ection w hich takes the f orm of a recount. Each side makes its w n lis t of b a llo t oar-ers w hich it ob je c ts to or claim s to be added,. " (u n d erlin in g su p p lied )• Cn the b asis of th is au th ority, :-:r. K u s e i fu rth er sub-* - - as the law in T anzania p rovid es fo r the r e lie f of scru tin y in ,r e lectio n p etitio n and not a recount, a w ide in ^ - r ^ - ta t i be given to the word scru tin y so as to accord to it a s in .a r m eaning as that ob tain in g under the E n g lis h law . He went on in h is subm ission , by a l l y i n g the E n glish law u n der the p ro visio n . . ./M of Section 2 of the JuJ i c at u re ?>-J 1i r ’ t i r ~ ~f I ■»•..■? ~'rJ i r , C h a p t e r 45 3, the relie f of a r e c o u n t woul^ be availab le as u r g e d by t h e p etition ers, the appellants in this case. That i s so, he in sisted, because, under the E n g l i s h law, scrutiny takes the form o f a recount. Mr. Maira, le a r n e d Counsel for the firs t r e s p o n d e n t was quick: to respond to these submissions. He s a i d , Mr. M usei's r e s o r t r - " t a —sprpiry- t h e ' E n g l i s h law i s xisccr.ceiveAs there is a ^ e c t f t c ^_i_gyr-?rtl TtXa n . j j u v e r n i r a e l e c t i o n s in Tanzania, he stated, t he E n g l i s h l aw c a n n o t be a p p l i e d . F u r t h e r m o r e Mr. Maira u rg e d , by v i r t u e of the J u d icatu re and A p p l i c a t i o n of Laws O r d i n a n c e , C h a p t e r 453, in appropriate situations, the E n g l i s h Statutes w h i c h w ou l d be applied I n .Tar. 33 r . i a a re statutes of general application. In this case, Mr. Mai ra m a i n t a i n e d , the law on election s is not a statute of general a p plication in w h i ch c a s e , it w ou l d pot apply in Tanzania. Addressing h i n s e l f at len gth on the la w rela tin g to e l e c t i o n s in Tanzania Mr. Maira stressed that as t h e conditions s e t o u t ur.-'er S e c t i o n 112 (d) of the E lection s Act, 1935 and Ru l e 12 o f t he E l e c t i o n s (E lection Petition s) Rul^s 1971 w er e n o t s a t i s f i e - 1, there was no l e g a l basis for ordering a scrutiny. Mrs. Lyiro. lejrned Prin cipal State Attorney for t he second' r e s p o n d e n t f u l l y associated herself w ith Mr. M a ir a ’ s submissions. As a l r e a d y ind icated, the issue in this appeal is whether the relie f of a scrutiny was, in the c i r c u m s t a n c e s a vailab le. 'We w i s h to make i t clear from the o u t s e t that i t is apparent f ro m the record that in d e a lin g with the issue of scrutiny, the m a t t e r was f u r t h e r complicate-! ’ rid c o n f u s o d by the manner in which it was h a n d l e d at t he trJ •» 1. 3 a result, it see.Ms t o us that throughout the proceedings on the issue of scrutiny, tr.e l ear ned j u d Ce , with respect, confuses scrutiny on one hand an** ' I Ij'- V J ! 1 'J !i 1l. " p ri't T f "> f w i i t Oi" * — in the p r o c e e d i n g s bears this out. 3-?f o r e the commencement o f the tria l, the C ou rt or^ore-i the issue on s c r u t i n y t o be tried firs t. What i s mor e, it is also apparent that at some stage, while the issue on s c r u t i n y was s till being tried , the c o u r t also allowed an amendment t o be e f f e c t e d in the p l e a d i n g s . The amendment so e f f e c t e d , i n our v i e w , introduced a new e l e m e n t to the p l e a d i n g s . That i s , the relie f of scrutiny as o r i g i n a l l y sought, was f u r t h e r q u alified by a d d i n g the w o r i s " b y w^y o f recount". The new e l e m e n t o f a recount, as we h a ve o b s e r v e d , is not p r o v i d e d under the E l e c t i o n s Act, 1905 as one o f the reliefs t o be sought in an e l e c t i o n petition . Yet, with due respect to the learned tria l judge, he a l l o w e d the which, to some extent, contributed t o wa r d s the c o n f u s i o n t h a t e n su ed in the pr^ceedinas t h a t c u l m i n a t e d in t he r u l i n g , t he s u b j e c t or this appeal. We shall revert to t h i s issue later. We s h a l l next deal with the i s s ’ je whether t he E n g l i s h law w oul d be applicable in o r d e r to avail the relier of ;> r e c o u n t . wr . Musei l e a r n e d C o u ns e l firm ly r.airtair-sd that it would. '1i t p. respect, we do n o t agree. There is no g a i n s a y i n g - h a t u nd e r t he Judicature and R e p l i c a t i o n of la ws O r d in a r c e , - . r . a c t e r 453, _^o conditions are necessary for ar E n g l i s h statute to apply in Tanzania. F irst, the statute concerned must be a s t a t u t e of general application . Secondly, there s h o u l d be no s p e c i f i c legisla tio n enacted in Tanzania dealing witn the m a t t e r in question. In t he Instant ease, the first condition is not sn tisfied because, the legislation involved is not a statute of g e ne r a l application. The second c o nd i t i o n i s not rnet e i t h e r . tc. 6 This is because in Tanzania there is t he Elections Act, 1385 w h i ch sp ecifica lly provides for election matters. In that situ ation, we Can f i n d no b a s i s for applying the E n g lis h 1 a*r i n a n za r . i g as c : agreement w ith Mr. Maira, learned Cou rse! for the f i r s t respondent th at the applicable law i n this c a s e was t he E l e c t i o r s Act, 1985. Ir our c o n s i d e r e d opirion, t he E n g l i s h l a w on Par'LLa.’rveivtiwy e l e c t i o n s though in p a r t is sim ilar to the E lection s Act, 1985 o f Tanzania is not applicable fo r t he reasons -g-iven,. Ravira th is view, it fo llow s that we a r e o f the v i e w that the a^en.lrer. t to t he p l e a d i n g c in this c~a_se whicrh was e f f e c t e d on t h e authority of t he E n g l i s h law, w a s misconceiired - u nd e r the law in Tanzania. Next, we i n t e n d to a d d r e s s on t h e g u - » s t i o n o f scrutiny. This i s orve o f t he r e l i e f . 1-, t h a t may be c l a i m e d u nd e r Section 112 (d) of t he E l e c t i o n s Act, 1985. The q u e s t i o n is whether in tex-fis o f t h e pt ' o vl si -o i vs o f this Xct, sc r u tin y - as soug ht in the p ^ e t i t i o n was w a r r a n t e d . The l ea r rr e d tria l judge bald th at the conditions ret out in tf>e A c t w er e n o t sa tisfied for w+iich reason, Mr- Mu se i , raises serious com plaint of d issa tisfa ction . In p a r t , A ctio n 112 o f the -ct p r o v i d e s : d) V.'hsre the seat is c ed f o r ar. uk succc- s s f u 1 C3 r J i J i t i :n the ground that he had 3 r ; !c r itv of lawful voter 3 scrutiny (emphasis sur>pl i e d ) . From t h e p r o v i s i o n s of sub-clause ( d ) of iection 112 o f the E lections Act, 19^5, a n o c 3s s 5 r y r e q u i r e m e n t i s that the pleadings should i n d i e a te t h a t a named p a r t i c u l a r c a n d i d a t e who was u n s u c c o s s fu 1 in the e l e c t i o n had a m ajority of law ful votes. In L ~ .C«. " W -- X -. O 11 1 1 ---- -— _ 1 - - ’i l l n i- » • - ~ r-1 ijl -I " - 1 ‘ ~ *- ". - • ■- •“ n »■*•=> - — ■- ~ - ~J ^ -* *- — » are t a be a^ded, such an u n s u c c e s s f u l candidate w o u l d be t he winner. Ip the c a s e b e f o r e us, apart f ro m the p r a y e r for scrutiny ■whi^h-was, os a lr e a d y p o in te d out, q u alified with the request for a recovin-t o f votes, it is not in d icated in the p l e a d i n g s that any of the u n s u c c e s s f u l c s r ^ i ^ a t e s , had -j m a j o r i t y of votes. B ec au se of this omission in the p l e a d i n g s , t he learned tria l judge held tKat th-a a p p l i c a t i o n was m i s c o r . c e i v - ' i n tejms of Section 112 (d) of the E l e c t i o n s Act, 1965. He a d d r e s s e d him self in these words: "On a c a r e f u l in terpretation of the a bo v e q uo t e d provisions in relation to this petition on the issue of scrutiny, I fin d that the p e t i t i o n e r s did not comply w ith Section 112 (d) of the E l e c t i o n s Act in t h a t they om itte d to p le a d in their petition that a particu lar unsuccessful candidate ir t he K a r a t u Parliam entary election s had a m a j o r i t y of lawful votes. ......... Four o f t he c a n d i d a t e s w er e defeated. Now w h i c h one o f these four unsuccessful c a r d i J -’ t e s are t he petition ers claim ing fir scrutiny t o be h e l d in his fa vo u r'" (emphasis s u ttlie d '. In c o n s i d e r i n g the r e ^ u i r e men t s of t he law u n d e r Section 112 (d) of the Act as shown i n t he a bo v e extract of t he judgment, t he learned judge t oo k into account fu rth er conditions w h i ch a re provided u n^ er Pul e 12 o f the E l e c t i o n s (E lection Petition s) Fule. 1971 w h i ch p r o v i d e 3 : - /Q • • • / _ *i (i ) _ "V.'ho ro scrutiny 'jnc'er tn.e p r o v i s i o n s of paragraph (d) of Section 112 o f the :ct is soucht e i t h e r by the — coti-.ior-^r or a respondent, t he not less than six days b efore the dav f i x e d for the hear i ng or the p e titio n , lod ge w ith the R egistra r a lis t or votes in ten d ed to be o b ;ect e^ to by him and of the o b j~c t i o r.s to ea-h vot e. ---------” To our mi nds, the c r ; v i s i - s o f t hi s r u l e are c l e a r and unambiguous. It i s a mandatory r e T, i r o - , r . t that i r pr oces s i ng t h e p e t i t i o n , the party seeking s c r ut i ny sr.all lodge wi th the Re g i s t r a r o f the Hi gh Court a list o f votes i n t e r r e d to be obj ect ed to not l e s s t han six days before the date f i x e d f o r hear i ng the p e t i t i o n . In her e, no lis t at all of vot es i ntended to be obj ect ed t o was l o d g e d , let alone the time prescri be- * of n o t less than s i x days b e f o r e the da y f i x e d for hear i ng the p e t i t i o n . Aich g r e a t r e s p e c t , it is r i d i c u l o u s and i mp r a c t i c a l to s o * * a scrv.iny of a l l the v o t e s in the whole cons t i t uency of Karatu as r.r. Xusei was ^ cpar ent l y endeavouri ng to do in t hi s cas e . .hat, to our mj.r.ds, ^as not ^...e o b j e c t i v e of the l e g i s l a t u r e i-. p r - z i H r v j in the E l e c t i o n s Act, 1985 f o r scrutiny. : . eeJl ^ s s to overemphasi ze, s c r ut i ny i s aimed at di s put ed and s p e c i f i e d v : t o 3 which are the s ub j e c t of s c r ut i ny i n o r der to a s c e r t a i n the cl aim by the p e t i t i o n e r .i.a^ -.e had a ma j or i t y o f v 3t es. :r r.r total; in t hi s case, s c r ut i ny was soucht in suchg e n e r a l i s e ’ farm that it amounts in e r r e c t to r e - d o i ng the whole e x e r c i s e or count i ng tr.e vot^s i n '-••e ^h« - e cons t i t ue nc y. For th~ we a - ^-lofied that the l ear ned judge was j u s t i f i e d in h - conclu^on that the co ndi t i o ns set out under Secti on 112 ' * ) of the E l e c t i - r s Act, 1935 and Rule 12 Of the E lection s R u les, 1971 were not s a tis fie d . We cannot accept Mr. M u s e i's claim th at the om ission in the p lead in gs to sp ecify that a p a rticu la r u n su ccessfu l can d id ate among the is a fundamental and m a n d a t o r y requirement w h i ch g o e s to the v e r y root of the m atter w ith wh i ch failu re to comply renders the granting of scrutiny u n t e n a b l e / ' Such, we a r e ‘ S a t i s f i e d , was t he position in this case. That b e in g t he lega l r e q u i r e m e n t which was n o t c o m p l i e d w i t h , we a re u n a b l e to accept .-:r . Musei s assertion that the learned judge erred in holding that the prayer __ -.e vot°s was 1 e a a 11 y m i s c o n c e i v e d for scrutiny - -<=------ - -* k- and i n c o m p e t e n t . At this juncture, we p o s e to c o n s i d e r the d istin ction between recount and s c r u t i n y . From the record, it is apparent that t he learned tria l judge referred to recount o f votes and scrutiny interchangeably. In o r - e r to c l e a r the c o n f u s i o n , it is desirable to b r i e f l y a d d r e s s on t h e d i f f e r e n c e between scrutiny and r e c o u n t in relation to t he law. From the o u t s e t , it s houl d co mrids C i G ^ r „ .. „nat . i v-. -v tn*. +•< >n two *. rpl ^ e*£ «; - d istin ctly c, i f f e r f t r t and a v a i l a b l e under the E l e c t i o n s Act, 1905 a t d ifferen t stages of the p r o c e s s of counting of votes and t he p e r i o d after the d e c l a r a t i o n of the e l e c t i o n results. These d ifferen ces , . „-..j -r-t'- a a > i - s ' - the backcrourd of the major chances have to =e _oc-.- -ru a^_J-- t h a t have beer effected on t he E lectionsAct, 198 5. I t i s common knowledge .u - t..c r „ lx6e ,_* w- ix n- rr ., i ( mer.dment) t r. at A c t , 1990 and t h e E lection s ( Amendment) Act, 1992 togeth er with oth er subsequent amendments w er e aimed at; among o t h e r s : e n s u r i n g c l o s e supervision and m o n i t o r i n g of the p r o c e s s of votin g by p r e s i d i n g officers, :he courss pollin g assistants and p o l l i n g agents at every stage in tn .../10 of counting votes. In the process of counting v o te s Sec^-jns 78 and 80 o f the E l e c t i o n s Act, 1995 p r o v i d e for t he recount o f votes at two s t a cj e s . F irst, 3t t Jv s t a c o when t h e c o u n t i n g o f votes is being corrnloto^ at the p s l l i r i station . At that stage a presiding officer may be requested for a recount of votes by the c s r - ji-'g te :r his cou rtin g agent presort when t h e c o u n t i n g of votes takes p la c e . ioc'n d , the ac u t i o r . oi LJ-.J!!1" ..— place at the o f f i c e of the ? « turning Cfficer, the c a n d i d a t e or the p o l l i n g agent p re sen t at the p o l l i n g station may r e q u e s t the Returning O f f i c e r to check the addition in o r d e r to ascertain the accuracy of the d i s p u t e d report of the results from the pollin g station s. **1 A fter the addition of votes and d e c l a r a t i o n of the resu lts, the Elections .<t, 1985 d o e s not p r o v i d e for the recount o f the “ “ votes. That i s , Section 80 (3) of the E l e c t i o n s , Act 1985 - provides for t he last stage when a r e c o u n t rf votes is sought. For the p e r i o d that follow s a fter the d e c l a r a t i o n of the r e s u l t s , to s e ek a recount o f votes as a r e l i e f as i t happened in this c a s e w o ul d be u n t e n a b l e and m i s c o n c e i v e d in law. The p e r i o d that follow s after the d e c l a r a t i o n of resu lts nay w e l l in'-olve the time an e l e c t i o n petition is filed in Court. It is common knowledoe that in an e l e c t i o n p etition , one o f the relie fs that may be c l a i m e d is a scrutiny. Section 112 (d) of the E l e c t i o n s Act, 1985 p r o v i d e s for scru tiry among o t h e r reliefs. Recount is r.ot cr.e o f t he r ^ l i e f c set out under t h i s section. For th is reason, it is in our r i e w , lega lly in correct to introduce in the p l e a d i r . r s the e l e m e n t o f a recount of votes as a r e l i e f in an e l e c t i o n petition . Cr. t h a t b a s i s and w i t h due respect, we think the learnc-d j u d g e confused and mi xed up t h e t wo r e l i e f s -- /II - 11 which are, as a l r e a d y indicated, availab le at d ifferen t stages, In p a r t, he stated: "Consequently, on t h e tota lity of my firH ip gs based on the in terpretation of the E l e c t i o n Act, 1935 I rule that the p r a y e r for scrutiny by r e c o u n t o f t he votes in the 1995 P a r l i a m e n t a r y election s f o r Karatu Constituency is both m isconceived and lega lly in com peten t. " In view , or. the f a c e of this statem ert, the g e n e r a l t rrprersvt on which emerge 6 i s t h a t both the r e l i e f s fDr r ec cr up t and s c m r f i g y were- l o g n l l y incompe t e r t . This, with respect, is not c o r r e c t because, one o f them, n a me l y , scrutiny was a competent pra yer allowed by law i n an a l c c t i o n p etition . As a l r c o t t y ob e e r ve - 4, it is the r^ccnjrt o f votes that the law d o e s not p r o v id e for. It was t h i s relie f w hi ch was i n c o m p e t e r t ard m isconceived in l aw because it was b e i n g s o ug ht at a s t a g e when t he l aw d o e s n o t allow *s co rrectly helil by t ho learned ju^gc. In short, it is oux v i - w that the two r e l i e f s h.Tv'e b^<-n (’ e s c r i b e d in ouch a -way that it is misleading and c o r f u s i n g . *e are however, satisfied that as r e c ? r J s s c r u t i n y the application was p r o p e r l y rejected on the orour.--'s t h a t the c o n d i t i o n s under Section 112 (d) of the E lections /.ct, 1935 and Rule 12 o f t h e E l e c t i o n s (Election P etition s) Rules, 1971 w e r e not sa tisfied . In the result, despite t ho mix up ard c o n f u s i o n on r e c o u n t and scrutiny, we agree w ith the f i r a l conclusion that scrutiny was n o t in t he circu~stances, available. In ground one, tfr. r\:sei, learned Counsel had a l s o raised the issue of r!es j u d i c a t a . H av i ng clo sely listen ed to h i s . /12 12 submissions it is -ipcqrort th/st ho was n o t referrin g to Res j-udicatare in its strict se ns e 5s provided under S e c t io n 9 of t he C i v i l P r o c e d u r e Code, 19^6. Rather, we u n d e r s t o o d him t o take t he v i e w that it was 3 con tradiction on the port o f the iearr.ea judge co n o i d tnat cne C o u r t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n to ^rant a scrutiny contrary to an e d r l i e r ruling the C o u r t on 1 2 . 9 . 1 9 9 6 . 'With r e s p e c t , we do n o t agree with Mr. Mu se i , l e a r n e d C o u n s e l on t h i s submission. ,.\s c o u n t e r e d by Mr- Ma i r a , learned Counsel and Mr^ L v i m o , learned P rin cipal State At t or r ' ®y . , we a g r e e that there is no c o n t r a d i c t i o n in th is ruling, t he su bject o f the appeal and t h e ea rlier ruling by t h e learned tria l judge as r e g a r d s the issue of scrutiny. The reason is simple. That i s , that t he ea rlier rulin g involved t h e i s s u e -— - - , whether the Court had j u r i s d i c t i o n to Heal with the application for scrutiny. On t h a t , the learned judge held and c o r r e c t l y so ir. o u r v i e w , that t h e C o u r t had ju risd iction to deal with the .n atter. Cn t he o t h e r hard, the issue involved in the rulin g, t he subject of this appeal, was w h e t h e r in the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t he c a s e scrutiny v.33 warranted. The learned j u d g e was corvinced that t he requ isite conditions were not satisfied fo r the g r a n t i n g of scrutiny, he dismissed t he application . Or o u r part, the le-:al position is so c l e a r that t he learned judge can h a r d l y be faulted in his decision on this point. In the ea rlier ru lirg the judge was o f the vie w that the C o u r t had ju risd iction to deal with the issue w hile in the subsequent rulin g w h i c h g av e rise to this appeal, the C ou rt in e x e r c is e of its ju risd iction , dism issed the application on the g r o u n d s that there was no m e r i t in it. In thos-"1 c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we are sa tisfied that there war. no c 3 r t n J i c t i o r in between the .../13 13 ea rlier rulin g and tho one c o m p l a i n P d against in this appeal. We r e j e c t this grourd. In the result, and f o r the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed with co sts to t ho respondents. We a l s o rem it the case to the Hi gh C o u rt fo r contin uation of t he h e a r i n g o f t he p etition w he r e we hope it w ill proceed exped itiou sly from t he p o i n t w he r e the ruling of the High C o u r t o f 25.11.1996 was delivered. DATED /.T O/.R ES SAL.w.M THIS 26TH 0 * Y OF SEPTEMBER, 1997. I-. M• MF A.LI L A JUSTICE OF APPEAL 3. A. • S , KA T TA JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy o f the o r i g i n a l . ( M.S. SH.-.f'G.-LI ) OEFUTY rec-i s t r /.s