ectus wangabo vs principal secretary of home affairs another 1994 tzhc 414 26 october 1994

*' ■ misc. c iv il a r s s so*. 54 op 1993 la the matter of an application byv CXSBIPTJS WA#$ABO fo r lej*ve to apply for orders i f Certiorari and Kacdanus tuA In the natter of the decijion of the Principal Secretary r JSinistry of Hose Affaire and Principal Secretary President* s Office* . Between C retu s Wangabo V'.vr' ~-And The Principal Secretary Ministry of Hob© Affairs and 33ae Principal Secretary President*^ Offlo©*! $he Attorney General. \• v"'' mm. w ©ae applicant, Cletus Wangabo, was employed by the M&nl*try'**f Howe Affairs as an Assistant Inspector in the Priaons'BepartBiettt* Be was dismissed from his employment by the ■Principal Secretary of t&at Ministry by letter Sated 17 April 1990* His appeal to tha . M io e and Prisons Sozvicc Commission was dismissed on 4 Hayl991i iphe applicant petitioned to the President* s Office* Tint He filed the application for orders of certiorari and mandamus, in tfais court on 19 August, 1993• - ■ ; - - . • ■ «v / • - , , ; • • - !. * • . At the commencement of the heating pf this application, jfcr* SwlAunda, learned Sta te Attorney* argued a preliminary po£iStv-that Hl» application is time-barred* and it Should be dismissed* If* hie Sttholeeion# learned State Attorney said that the application to tlii« court should hare been filed within six months after the decision •Ojf'tbe Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs anfl after the Police Force and Prison Service Commission1s decision* Learned State Afttomey further es&d that ©van after the decision of the J&lioe Foree and P r ls o n ^ ^ m ^ e °«^ <,^mamlqated to the app&fM&t aalfay 1991, the applicant did not file the application to this •oilj* within six months* The application was filed on 19 Ai^fliat - I a r e p ly to \1^e; jpra^iia±r.a-'y _>poi4%.xa ieo d , Mr* Kashumb^gu, lafcrtwd ootaosel f o r the ap p lican t* se,:: ' . th a4; th is a p p lic a tio n could n ot 1)0 s^jj||r: » n t i l the decision was'made by the Principal Secretary to the Preaid eat* O fflo e* That decision was naio cn 14 A p ril 1993 end this application ’ ' wall f ile d on August 1993* Sc- Mr* Kashunbugu said that the Qp|vM^m^a|»»yi was file d within the statutor r period o f six months, go i t «■»*» ‘ barredS . . ■ ' ' >' She d e c is io n o f the Pol 3© Force and P rison s S erried OofflndLiH^toxi rode i n t h is m atter was f in a .• S e c tio n 7(3) o f 't h e P o lic e fo r c e »na P riso n s SeiYioeCiOsBiisda on jAet, No* 8 o f 1990 provide^ as fo llo w s : ■ \ , v .y ■ , ”Ihe f i n a l d i s c i p l l n a i y a u t h o r i t y in re sp e c t o f 1 / o f f i c e r s o f the rank o f A s s is ta n t -Trmpector to ^ the rank o f A s s is ta n t C oim issfdner i s ire&ted i a . ^ the Coimaissionor,!' , ,, , r '■ f ' S ■ ,r ■ „ ■ •. \ - .*i'N Ihe a p p lic a n t was an A s s is ta n t In sp e c to r, and when the C o a sis a ie a ' d ism issed h is appeal and confirmed the d e c is io n b y t b e P r in c ip a l S e c r e ta r y o f d ism issin g him* th a t d e c is io n by the Goimafseioa fin a l* I e n t i r e l y agree w ith Mro M«idunda t h a t the aj>pl^ant*0 }\ ooiirplaint to the IPresldenVs O ffic e was d o n e o u tsid e the p ro v isio n s o f the la w , and in c id e n t a lly , the P r e s id e n t's o f f i c e eonfinned th e • d e c is io n by the Cornnission« The a p p lica n t was req u ired , imiaediatfiEly a f t e r the Commission made i t s d e c is io n , to ap p ly to t h is C o u r t.fo r p re ro g a tiv e o rd e r s, i f ho f e l t th a t he was n ot f a l r l y tr e a te d 2 There i s 1 no p r o v is io h a njwheie in the/Jpollce to r o e and P rison S e rv ic e Commission A c t, f o r a person aggrieved by the d e c is io n o f Commission to appea 1 to the P r in c ip a l S e c r e ta r y , the Provident* 0 O ffic e , S e c tio n 18 (5) o f tjieitiaw Eefoita (J a ta l Aacidente and V i0 cella n eo u s Provisions)* A c t a£ amended by k a % No* 55 o f I96B p ro vid es a s fo llo w s* "In, th e case o f an a p p lic a tio n f o r -an ord er o f c e r t i o r a r i to remove any Judgment, o rd e r, d e c re e , oonvlcM oji o r o th er prbceeding f o r th e purpose o f i t s being quashed lea vo s h a ll n ot bd- granted' u n less the a p p lio a tlo a f o r ; le a v e l e naS© IrvL^r xlian s i x months a f t e r x i ^ 'c j th e date o f the proceeding o r such 'sh o rter "period^ as may be p roscribed under any A ct «*4**n / She ord er which the a p p lic a n t i s seeking le a v e to ap p ly f o r 1**» purpose o f i t s being quashed, was made by the ComKtasioa «o*sflioea h is d ism issa l from employment* The C:,emission mad« I t * on 4 Kay 1992 afid vm$ filed -aa X9 ;i^ 2 and this app lioation wf'-m a W 19 A t^ st 1993# > * * Ur* Mwidunda subsettted* 13.': application was •filed «£te* t i» of sije taonthsj and so it Is tiaeN-barred* ' I t ia tX&t the -application be made w ithinsix nontha after the decision ‘ i • <’ - - v- v •. i \■T,■■^ .<!'?’ ■-t : ■ ■ . - ■ ■ • \'• v ’ ■. • . ' ... ' f-..... /■ :• . ■ •■■..■ was Bade* I f there was su fficien t causa fo r the delay* tb£ applioant would have applied fo r leave to f i l e the application •» , out of tin e under section 4 of the Law of Limitation Act? So such application has bee i made fo r extension o f tine* $h© application is tir -'—barred1 and i t Is dienissed with m >■ ■ costs* t U k : # I W. J . MAINjI i JlEXffi M m am m • a a 26th. Gotoher, 1 m * *»* Vmam* for Hr, Keeiaiabugu fo r the sppiioant * * * Hut&mria* sts&e Afrfcoaaoy, f car tfc* tospan&e^